







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































mmm 






W 


V ♦^T* /v «\ •?.!> .Cr v *^r* <\ -?.?• «< 

’», “V, ^ * $%jij^ ** c° v ^ ^ o°^ 



.* - i- 0 '’*. • 



° ^ ^ 

• <}J V o * 

*** 0 ° ^ **' 4 ' A v 

v * * * ®* ^ ^p v t ^vi% 

%<&* 'h$m° 

/ a? 'V -Jalp * 4^ ^ ^ -. . ___.. 

<> '*.»* ,G* A rf. *?• i * .G 4 *^5^T* y' 

J.% .0* *0. ^,.»•••.% fP* .•!*.. *o 4*' 



• ^ A* - 

: v* v - 





O <£> °it> 


'■ * ip rf\ \ 

> K V*^ f V V^V" ”%**^V V 

V _•"••» X, ■*? V .•A*'* -> V V . • •«- X. -9* .•Al'. ^ 



• ’<?o. <$ * 


• aV"\ o 


• ^ A^ ♦ 

V^ v * 


. •. \*+' . 

wV’X, •ssfv’’ V’W-‘ o 

# ^b iV . i • * * *t$ p . (\^ 

, °o W 4 ^ C° 




jl* ^ 



• aJ* o * ^<^U VP »* -0 

a V '•q * »T* • «Q J* 

\V Xf, *«' A v • * 

V **•«- *p r .r^L/* V 

• X A 4 4Vi" Xo c** ♦ySpS&V’* tj. > .’ 


; 


>V 




^ ^ 4 v •’b. a^'V '*®iis» 

"C** * <0 & ^o » 4 * .0^" / 

Z* ^ ^Jr*^** ^ ^ ,0* •‘VV*# ^O 


'A n> 







( ^ % *•' A 0 >, *<r ^ *T7i« % A 0 

>» v>* /iste--. ♦<. .*♦ .iv*. ■%. >.-. . 




b °vMW * «J> ^ ".W-Jg.* A ^ y *V *Wf; a^'V '^ss^* 

, • r^';* ,«. v -%IKiir. ^ ^ <,v V. ^ViS* 

X ** g° %. 7 ^r* ^ <. '...* ,G^ ^ *7f^*c* <\ 

♦. X (,° .“jw^l* A* . • ^ ,0* o ° ■ *« -*b v?> % 

:»• ^ n < *^la- ^ v 4 +>■ ■* .v .* 



■*• o' 


<>* 4.A 


>°v . 

o° * * 

5r>. .* *. "% A 4 "b> 4 

,v>. ■sf^aa?^: '-WMa* 


oV .1 

P++ Vi 






* 4 ? ^ 0 



* % o 




A& , W • * <£. 

* .♦««?£* t 



’• ^ a* V 

, r V< V •« 


v ^ 

» h.v 

rU <• ^*00^ • <l" O *• -itv - , 

^ A* **#i* 

V C\ c 

i • ^ ^ 'jC^vIhP/lfc 0 c£ 

c, n u V 

*&ak** ^ «; a^ v ° 0 

• * a& 'Sf •* A <**••** .<r 

c %•«§&<• ° <4* *Wgv ^ c° *W. ~o 





• cfi ■* « aV** 

* .a • a a v v*. 

* . <c^ ^ ^ 

o w */rvT* A 

-» ^o a ^ •'■'*♦ 

<r * fc 



» ^ *• 



r ♦ © 


.™ //i ,_, j. 0 -^ ’.W|>.‘ a°* :, €iyi!!?; j. 0 ^ I 

v * • • ’ '/-V • • ° v. ■ • ..v *"' v°°. • • •. v* • ; ° ° 

: : ^ •»: V* \/ V* 

V-*. C^a A** Jjv 

<s *'°"** 'vttJv a <a * # o. k * 4 g* ^ 

„-d ^ * arrf???-> * r ~sr 0 o «J^ *?ArJT?7-^. * **tcr C « 

- ♦* 'Afl^-:. +*<$ :£mb- ' 



; % • 


3 V 
D •/* 





■% Jr c' .o ■% % 

’V, *» «»° -V * • 11 • jO tj> " * •» a a -^» 

”• ' * s sy .*^ 1 '. *> v N .’•»> 

% •*«. /}► ,*^^' * ■«• -ft 


; v 

•* ^ ^ ** 1 T, .* 





* C? U A - 

r * • 1 
4 <IA V ei*. 

* A* "a ♦ 



o ^ 






°o V.# 


- Ow^ *.iW‘ ^^A -»#; aV-^ 

v ^ ^ ,* 4 ^ % *ygWs j’ % *.^K* <$ % 

•* ’ ofi <a 'o*** <Cr vD A 

or 6 0 JL** ^o a^ V •*■'*♦ ^a, Or *^b 

L 4 *J&rf 22 Z*S 9 ^fr 0 V> ♦* 



« *>* A ** 


r oK 




%. -^V V^' <x ‘V^'X %'•••"••' 

•°- %, .< 3 v .!A 1 ', <> v v .••«. ^ . 0 ^ ,*V., **' 

% *^. 4 > A^raiv*. d>- «, .’aji/. x* — 




« aV*\ o 
;* ^ ^ o 

^ A ^ 

A^ • i*^ 
< 1 * ,’>*< ^ 



r. *♦ .* 

: v^ v • 



•. ^ A 1 * ,», 

t • 




'• ^ ^ 

* Vv 

'• * 4 ^ *^f> «vSCv^‘ A^> kiv 

A V v? 7 f»* A <✓ *'•• ** jCr ■ 

Or o 0 * # * C 3 > 4 ^’ > • 0 ^ »® * * ♦ 

•__ c • ^ O d'P r*»yf^» * A... ^• 

'J'a >. v • \\ ♦ aFtd/Zr^ - 



:- ^ 0 < « 



*+* « 




• O -0 a O * -ha' — | 

<$> # • Vo 0 ^ # * I ■» • A 0 * • • O ° **!■»• 

"■. > 0 «’•♦- c>. ^ .vJA'. > v S .’*•- ex a 

*. ^ a- »^gv= o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

-/ J? ‘ V 4 ^ V \ 

• * # A°^ ^ ^VVi* A ^ -c, * ® 6* V?Pf* A <V 

A * &((l 7 fel? *I ^ W 4 

>- °< 

* 4 O 

« <y <« 



t: ^ V 

* A A * 




>*’ ’e>. 

^<y .‘jz .. *> v’ . 

• ** *- 
' w • 




r; 

♦ ^ ^*» ® 



o. A 

❖ ^ 

^ A° *-^L'. > 

;. V xr .r 

t '^•r • 

















Proceedings 

of the 

National Immigration Conference 

Held in New York City 
December 13 and 14, 1923 


SPECIAL REPORT NUMBER 26 


National Industrial Conference Board 
































































PROCEEDINGS 

OF THE 

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION 
CONFERENCE 


Held in New York City 
December ij and 14 , 1923 


Special Report Number 26 


National Industrial Conference Board 

10 East 39th Street 
New York City 





Copyright, 1924 


• * 

National Industrial CoNF*EREwfc£« B/mrd 


By Transfer 
D. C. Public Library 
JAN 3 1938 


Published February , 1924 


426478 

WITHDRAWN 


Foreword 

As a contribution to one of the outstanding problems of the 
day the National Industrial Conference Board presents in this 
report the results of the National Immigration Conference held 
in New York City on December 13 and 14, 1923. In calling 
and conducting this Conference the National Industrial Con¬ 
ference Board acted solely as an intermediary, with the single 
purpose of performing a needed public service by bringing 
together for common counsel on this important problem all 
groups and individuals interested in its wise solution. For this 
reason np responsibility for any opinions or assertions of in¬ 
dividuals as reported in these Proceedings can properly be 
attached to the National Industrial Conference Board. The 
Board hopes, however, that this record of the widely diverse 
views on the immigration problem which were represented at 
the Conference may serve to focus attention on and facilitate 
the best solution of this pressing question in the interest of the 
social and economic welfare of the country. 






CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction. 1 

Purpose, Scope and Procedure of the Conference. 1 

Summary. 7 

General Views on the Immigration Problem. 7 

Views on the Specific Questions Before the Conference. .. 9 

Administrative Features of the Law. 9 

Percentage Restriction Features. 13 

Selection, Distribution and Assimilation. 17 

The Need for a Commission of Investigation. 19 

Proceedings 

I. Thursday Morning Session , December zj> 1923 

Frederick P. Fish. & . 21 

Magnus W. Alexander: “The Development and Major 

Aspects of the Immigration Problem”. 25 

Henry Fairfield Osborn: “The Approach to the Immi¬ 
gration Problem through Science”. 44 

General Discussion 

Charles Cheney. 54 

A. J. Derbyshire. 56 

Jenny W. Hess. 58 

C. E. Bennett. 59 

Francis D. Bartolo. 60 

Harvey W. Anderson. 61 

II. Thursday Afternoon Session , December 13 , 1923 

Mrs. Coffin Van Rensselaer. 64 

G. H. Topakyan. 65 

M. E. Bingeman. 66 

Spencer Dawes. 69 

John B. Trevor. 70 

Bell Gurnee. 72 

S. H. Abkarian. 74 

Charles Norman Fay. 75 

Edith B. Caff. 78 




























Contents —continued 


PAGE 

W. S. Hays. 80 

Giuseppe Vitelli. 82 

H. C. Reynolds. 84 

F. H. Kinnicutt. 85 

N. Behar. 86 

A. R. Smith. 87 

H. H. Smith. 88 

Howard Bradstreet. 91 

L. J. Rllis. 92 

Mary E. Hurlbutt. 95 

III. Thursday Evening Session , December ij , 1923 

John A. Pen ton.100 

Philip W. Henry.100 

Max J. Kohler.105 

John M. Hartley.110 

Isaac A. Hourwich.Ill 

Antonio Stella.113 

Charles Pergler.120 

James A. Emery.123 

William H. Schliffer.126 

F. H. Kinnicutt.127 

W. S. Hays.131 

Mordecai Soltes.132 

G. H. Topakyan.135 

Hugh W. Adams.136 

Herbert Treble.138 

S. H. Abkarian.140 

A. R. Smith.141 

M. F. Behar.141 

Edith B. Caff.142 

Giuseppe Vitelli. 144 

IV. Friday Morning Session , December 14,1923 

Peter J. Brady.146 

Harry E. Stone.146 

Christopher L. Orbach.150 

Arthur Essing.151 

Hugh Frayne.153 

vi 





































Contents —conti nued 


PAGE 

Mary Ware Dennett.156 

Frank W. Noxon.156 

Max J. Kohler.160 

Mrs. William Cumming Story.166 

Charles Cheney.168 

Kenneth D. Miller.170 

C. E. Bennett.172 

Florence Cassidy.172 

Giuseppe Vitelli.174 

V. Luncheon Meeting , December 14 , 1923 

Henry T. Allen.176 

VI. Friday Afternoon Session , December 14,1923 

Morris E. Siegel.179 

Etta V. Leighton.180 

James A. Emery.182 

Robert C. Deming.186 

Charles Pergler.188 

E. Celler.190 

John M. Hartley. 194 

Howard Bradstreet.195 

W. S. Hays.196 

Samuel McCune Lindsay.200 

E. V. Titus.202 

W. S. Hays.203 

Samuel Joseph.205 

M. E. Bingeman.207 

William Edlin.208 

Mrs. William Cumming Story.211 

Percy Stickney Grant.211 

Antonio Stella.214 

W. M. Willett.217 

Giuseppe Vitelli.219 

W. C. Smith.220 

Addresses of E. J. Henning , Assistant Secretary of Labor of 
the United States .225 

vii 


































Contents —continued 


PAGE 

Appendix—M iscellaneous Views on Aspects of the Immi¬ 
gration Problem Discussed at the Immigration Con¬ 
ference .254 

Stephen P. Duggan.254 

Edward A. Simmons. 254 

Carl Osborne.255 

R. J. Caldwell.255 

Thomas S. Luck.257 

North American Civic League of Immigrants.259 

Joseph Burger. :.260 

George Wolfe.260 

A. S. Coody.261 

Engineering Association of Nashville, Tenn.261 

E. Gasche.262 

Ross Pier Wright.264 

Robert G. Raymer.264 

Edward S. Ebbert.264 

Harry J. Schools.265 

M. J. Flanagan.265 

H. Lufft.266 

W. H. Stillhauer .. 267 

Rhode Island Steamship Ticket Agents, Providence, R. 1.271 


viii 






















Proceedings of the National 
Immigration Conference 

INTRODUCTION 


Purpose, Scope and Procedure of the Conference 

In 1922 the National Industrial Conference Board, recognizing 
that the expiration of the Per Centum Limit Act in June, 1924, 
would raise the question of the formulation of a new immigra¬ 
tion policy, undertook a broad study of the immigration 
problem, the results of which were published in May, 1923. 1 

The purpose and spirit of that study were indicated in the 
Foreword of the published report in these terms: 

The current discussion of the immigration problem.... 
has made evident not only the general demand for a perma¬ 
nent and carefully considered national policy toward immi¬ 
gration, but the wide diversity of interests and points of view 
involved in it. The discussion, moreover, has made especially 
clear the fact that the immigration problem is, in the present 
world situation, a problem essentially human in character 
and international in scope. It involves questions of human 
biology, world economics and international policy which can¬ 
not fairly be approached from any single point of view, or 
without fuller and more accurate knowledge of the complex 
and controversial factors entering into it. A comprehensive 
and humane immigration policy can be developed only out of 
far-sighted and scientifically grounded views of national and 
international social and economic progress and human welfare. 

To assist in the development of such views of the problem, 
the National Industrial Conference Board presents in this 
report a concise exposition of the available information es¬ 
sential to a broader understanding of the diverse aspects of the 
question and of the more important factors which a perma¬ 
nent and constructive immigration policy for the United 
States must take into account. 

The outstanding result of this investigation was a recognition 
of the complexity of the problem, the wide diversity of views on 
it, its continually changing character, and the lack of com¬ 
prehensive, scientifically tested and up-to-date information on 
some of its important economic, social and racial aspects. For 
these reasons the Conference Board was led to the conclusion 
*"The Immigration Problem in the United States,” Research Report No. 58. 

1 



that the first step in the construction of an adequate immigra¬ 
tion policy for the United States by the proper governmental 
authorities must be an orderly formulation of representative 
public opinion on the problem, in order to ascertain what the 
essential elements of such a policy are in the minds of those who 
have given thought to and have had practical experience with 
various aspects of the question. This conclusion was strength¬ 
ened by extended consultations and correspondence with im¬ 
migration officials, social and other private organizations devot¬ 
ing attention to the immigration problem, representative em¬ 
ployers and employees and representatives of foreign govern¬ 
ments, in which the many-sided experience and points of view 
on the question were revealed. 

To assist in formulating and focusing American opinion on 
the immigration problem, the Conference Board, on November 
15, 1923, addressed the following letter to individuals, industiial 
and business associations, labor unions, social and other or¬ 
ganizations dealing with various aspects of the immigration 
problem, steamship companies, colleges, churches, officials of 
the American and foreign governments and prominent individ¬ 
uals identified with the study of the question: 

The National Industrial Conference Board is arranging a 
Conference for broad discussion of a National Immigration 
Policy which will safeguard the social life and institutions of 
the United States while meeting fairly the normal economic 
needs of the country. 

Immigration is one of the important questions requiring 
early attention and legislative action by the Congress conven¬ 
ing in December, 1923. The Per Centum Limit Act of May, 
1921, with subsequent amendments, which regulates the 
influx of most of the immigration of the United States, will 
expire by statutory limitation on June 30, 1924. Extension 
or modification of this Act or substitution of a new law by 
Congress is therefore necessary. 

The National Immigration Conference will give interested 
persons, in their individual capacity or as representatives of 
organized groups of society, an opportunity to express them¬ 
selves on this important problem, thereby more fully focusing 
thought on all important phases of the subject and making 
the composite views thereon generally available to the public 
and its representatives in Congress. 

Following a concise presentation of the Immigration 
Problem with special emphasis on its major aspects, the 
principal questions upon which broad expression is needed at 
this time will be separately discussed. A Program of Discus¬ 
sion may now be secured upon request to the National In¬ 
dustrial Conference Board. 


2 


In order to insure free discussion, without committing any 
participant in the Conference, no motion or formal vote on 
any of these questions will be entertained. All discussions, 
however, will be reported and arrangements will be made for 
early issuance of the Proceedings of the Conference. 

A cordial invitation is extended to all organizations dealing 
with economic and social problems to appoint delegates and to 
call the Conference to the attention of their members in order 
• to secure their individual attendance and interest. The 
National Immigration Conference offers opportunity for co¬ 
operation in a most valuable public service. 

The Conference will be opened at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 
December 13, 1923, to be continued throughout that after¬ 
noon and evening and during the following day. 

We shall be glad to send you as many copies of this An¬ 
nouncement and of the Program therein referred to, as you 
may request; and we shall appreciate your early advice of the 
names and official connections of your Delegates and of 
others in your organization planning to attend the Conference. 

In response to this invitation, 282 delegates were appointed, 
representing 125 private organizations, and 14 states and the 
embassies and consulates of 9 foreign governments. 

The program of discussion used at the Conference was drawn 
up by the Conference Board’s Research Staff on the basis of 
its study of the immigration problem, as follows: 

Question I : Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained without 
change by extending the period of its operation beyond June 
jo y 1924; or shall it be amended in respect to its administrative 
features? 

Among suggested changes are: 

a. Shall control over quotas for the various nationality groups 
be vested in American consular officers or governmental 
agents in foreign countries, operating under instructions 
from the Federal Government and cooperating with im¬ 
migrants and steamship companies to prevent as far as 
possible the arriving of aliens in excess of quotas ? 

b. Shall the maximum monthly quota for each nationality be 
fixed so as not to exceed 10% (instead of the present 20%) 
of the annual quota, with the unused portion of any month¬ 
ly quota admissible in any succeeding month during the 
fiscal year ? 

c. Shall the wife and minor children arriving with an admis¬ 
sible alien or subsequently joining him in the United 
States, be admitted, if otherwise admissible, without being 
charged to a quota ? 

d. Shall an alien arriving after his nationality quota for the 
month has been exhausted and who is refused entry only 
because of exhaustion of such quota, be admissible under 

3 


a new monthly quota without being returned to the 
country of embarkation ? 

e. Shall resident aliens leaving the United States for a tem¬ 
porary visit abroad be admissible on their return without 
being charged to quotas, if such return occurs within a 
year and if they are otherwise admissible ? 

f. Shall “aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, 
singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, # 
professors for colleges or seminaries, aliens belonging to 
any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as 
domestic servants” (Act of May 19, 1921, Section 2d) or 
the wife and minor children of any such alien arriving 
with him or subsequently joining him, be admitted, if 
otherwise admissible, without being charged to quotas ? 

g. Shall physical examination of aliens desiring to emigrate 
to the United States be held at principal ports of embarka¬ 
tion abroad by United States medical officers ? 

h. Shall any other administrative modifications be made and, 
if so, what modifications ? 

Question II: Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained with 

amendments in respect to percentage restriction features? 

Among suggested changes aie: 

a. Shall the percentage be changed ? 

b. Shall the census year on which the percentage is based be 
changed ? 

c. Shall the percentage be made to depend on the number of 
aliens of each nationality group resident in the United 
States or on the total population in the United States ? 

d. Shall quotas be based on net immigration ? 

e. Shall other changes be made and, if so, what changes ? 

Question III: Shall special legislation be enacted to secure better 

selection , distribution and assimilation of alien immigrants? 

Among principal suggestions are: 

a. Shall a Federal Immigration Board be created to regulate 
the flow of immigration to the United States under what¬ 
ever immigration law is in effect ? 

b. Shall the Canadian system of selective immigration be 
given a trial in the United States ? 

c. Shall the contract labor law (Act of February 5, 1917, 
Section 3) be modified and, if so, in what respects ? 

d. Shall the illiteracy law (Act of February 5, 1917, Section 3) 
be modified, and, if so, in what respects ? 

e. Shall a system of registration of alien immigrants be put 
into effect and, if so, what form shall it take ? 

f. Shall a limited educational test in respect to ability to 
speak and write English and understand American institu¬ 
tions be required of every alien immigrant within a given 
time after his entry into the United States ? 

4 


g. Shall alien immigrants be prohibited for a limited period 
from settling in large cities ? 

h. Shall certain blood and intelligence tests be applied to 
alien immigrants ? 

i. Shall other special legislation be enacted and, if so, what 
kind ? 

Question IV: Shall a competent Commission with broad powers 
of investigation be appointed by the President under Congres¬ 
sional Resolution to inquire into the major factors in the 
immigration problem and report thereon? 

Among important topics for investigation are: 

a. Immigration and emigration in the light of present domes¬ 
tic and world conditions; 

b. Needs of normally functioning industry, commerce and 
transportation for an adequate labor supply and, in so far 
as the native supply is insufficient, for immigrants gen¬ 
erally, and for special groups of immigrants; 

c. Economic and social assimilability of foreign racial groups; 

d. Effect of mixture of races upon the virility and social 
progress of the nation; 

e. Practical methods of selecting, distributing and assimilat¬ 
ing immigrants; 

f. Suggestions for an adequate, scientific and practical 
program of immigration based on an analysis of the aims 
and ideals of our national life. 

In order that the Conference might be conducted efficiently, 
broad discussion be assured, and wide opportunity for expression 
of views be afforded, all participants in the Conference were 
urged to cooperate with the chairmen in observing the following 
procedure: 

1. Discussion at each session will be confined to the particular 
question under consideration at that time as outlined in 
the printed program. 

2. Each speaker on any of the four major questions will be 
strictly limited to Ten Minutes. Speakers are earnestly 
requested not to embarrass the chairman by violating 
this necessary rule. 

3. Those desiring to be heard are requested to fill out a 
Speaker's Card and send it to the chairman of the session. 
Preference in recognition by the chairman will be given to 
these requests. 

4. Speakers will be afforded an opportunity to extend their 
remarks in the printed Proceedings, provided their manu¬ 
scripts do not exceed 2,000 words and are sent to the 
National Industrial Conference Board not later than 
December 18, 1923. 


5 


5. Those whose requests to be heard cannot be reached be¬ 
cause of lack of time, will, as far as practicable, be afforded 
the same privilege of extension of remarks in the printed 
Proceedings. 

6. No motion or formal vote on any question relating to im¬ 
migration will be entertained. 

In order to foster broad and diversified discussion no special 
program of speakers was arranged, with the exception of two 
introductory statements, one by Magnus W. Alexander, Manag¬ 
ing Director of the National Industrial Conference Board, and 
the other by Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American 
Museum of Natural History. All discussions were held under 
the rules given above and free opportunity was given all to 
speak, so far as the time limits of the Conference permitted. 
Over 500 persons attended the Conference and altogether 81 
persons were heard. In addition, a number of individuals who 
could not attend and organizations who could not send repre¬ 
sentatives transmitted statements indicating their attitude on 
the questions under discussion. 

The Proceedings of the Conference, as given in this report, 
are a complete record of the discussion of the questions outlined, 
except for editorial changes in the interest of clarity and the 
elimination of perorations, salutations, irrelevancies and repeti¬ 
tions. In order to make the discussion more continuous and in 
accord with the topical program, certain transpositions and 
rearrangements have been made. In the case of Hon. E. J. 
Henning, Assistant Secretary of the United States Department 
of Labor, whose discussion of the questions before the Confer¬ 
ence was considered to have special weight, his statements at 
the several sessions of the Conference are, with his approval, 
here brought together in one place. In a few cases, individuals 
who had asked permission to speak on a topic, but who were 
absent when called or for other reasons did not speak, have 
submitted statements not actually delivered at the Conference, 
and these have been included in the Proceedings at the proper 
place. Statements received from individuals and organizations 
who did not attend or who were not represented at the Confer¬ 
ence have been included in the Appendix. 

The Summary section gives an epitome of the general con¬ 
sensus of the Conference as a whole, as well as of the outstand¬ 
ing views and suggestions in respect to the major aspects of the 
immigration problem. 


6 


SUMMARY 


General Views on the Immigration Problem 

At the National Immigration Conference, held in New York 
City on December 13 and 14, 1923, all speakers and those who 
submitted their views separately, emphasized the importance 
of a scientifically-sound, practically-conceived and humane 
immigration policy, both for the economic, political and social 
welfare of the United States and for the maintenance of inter¬ 
national good will. There was evident a general sense that the 
United States had leached a stage in her development as a great 
nation wheie the formulation of such a policy was both necessary 
and proper, and that the attitudes, policies and administrative 
machinery so far developed in connection with the immigration 
problem could not be considered as affording a broad basis for 
future policy. These were, it was felt, experimental or tentative 
in nature, the outcome of an attempt of the United States to 
adjust herself to the new situation and the new problems raised 
by both the growth of the United States and the growth and 
changing character of immigration; they necessarily involved 
many elements of prejudice, sentiment or theory which had not 
been subjected to the test of experience or of scientific research, 
and they had consequently violated considerations of humanity 
in some respects, and considerations of sound economic or social 
policy in others. There was therefore need, in the first place, 
for all groups in the United States to subordinate their individual 
interests and combine to approach the problem of immigration 
policy in a spirit free from national, local or racial selfishness and 
prejudice; and, in the second place, there was need for a body 
of reliable scientific fact upon which the discussion of policy 
could be based. 

Frederick P. Fish, in opening the Conference, stressed these 
views, explaining that the National Industrial Conference Board 
had invited and welcomed representatives of all groups in¬ 
terested in the immigration problem in order that each might 
have the benefit of the others’ knowledge and point of view in 
cooperating toward the formulation of an adequate national 
policy. Magnus W. Alexander, the Managing Director of the 
National Industrial Conference Board, outlined the history of 

7 


the immigration problem in the United States and its main 
aspects as they presented themselves under the existing policies, 
and emphasized that available information in respect to the 
whole problem does not seem to be sufficient clearly to point 
the way to a sound solution. Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, 
President of the American Museum of Natural History, discus¬ 
sing “The Approach to the Immigration Problem through 
Science,” dwelt upon the racial aspect of the problem as that 
on which the newer sciences of biology and anthropology can 
throw new light. These sciences offered, he said, a means 
whereby this most difficult and most important aspect of the 
problem could be approached without sentimentality or preju¬ 
dice, and on which new administrative policies could be based. 
They indicated, he asserted, that a policy of selection was neces¬ 
sary and justified for the racial and economic welfare[of^the 
country. 

Following the tenor of the opening addresses, the subsequent 
statements made by other speakers at the Conference, the 
written comments received and the viewpoints expressed in 
informal discussions showed a broad unanimity in respect to: 

a. Condemnation of certain of the administrative workings 
of the present Per Centum Limit Act as resulting in 
numerous unnecessary hardships on immigrants; 

b. Approval of a policy of immigration restriction but dis¬ 
approval of any policy based solely on a numerical re¬ 
striction; 

c. A general belief that the kind of immigrants that are ad¬ 
mitted is of more importance than the number, and that 
a policy of selection abroad based on quality and capacity 
for assimilation would be desirable; 

d. The belief that, of equal importance with the determination 
of the conditions essential to admission in the United 
States, is the consideration of a policy of assimilation and 
Americanization of aliens within a fixed period after 
admission; 

e. Lack of information in respect to many major factors of 
the immigration problem and desirability therefore of an 
inquiry into and report on such factors with recommenda¬ 
tions, by a competent commission under Presidential 
authority; 

f. Continuation of the present Per Centum Limit Act pend¬ 
ing action by Congress on these recommendations, with 
such administrative modifications as experience has shown 
would improve efficiency and ameliorate hardships result¬ 
ing from strict enforcement of the present law. 


Views on the Specific Questions before the Conference 

Administrative Features of the Law 

There was a general agreement that, whether the present law 
was or was not retained in its essential features, experience had 
shown certain administrative improvements to be desirable. 
Discussion of these centered on the possibility and method of 
examination of immigrants abroad, and on the relation of wives, 
children and near relatives of admissible aliens and of other 
special classes of aliens to the quotas fixed. It was felt that 
changes in the law in these two respects were necessary in order 
to eliminate the hardships and possible injustices to both 
immigrants and their families. 

Other speakers emphasized that both the hardships entailed 
to immigrants who were returned to their native countries, as 
well as expenses to the United States in maintaining a large 
corps of immigration officers at ports of entry, would be avoided 
if more care were used in the selection of suitable immigrants 
on the other side. Some speakers went so far as to suggest that 
Ellis Island should be made merely a port through which im¬ 
migrants pass, or be eliminated altogether. The desirability of 
examination abroad was emphasized because of the great diffi¬ 
culty of making adequate examinations at the ports of entry 
in the United States, in view of the great numbers of immi¬ 
grants who must be subjected to careful tests very rapidly. It 
was pointed out, on the other hand, that examination abroad 
would not eliminate the necessity of examination at the port 
of entry in view of the fact that diseases might develop during 
the voyage. 

Several speakers emphasized strongly the international ob¬ 
stacles in the way of examination of immigrants abroad. This 
could not be done without the consent of foreign powers, which 
it was felt that it would be difficult to secure. It was suggested 
that examination abroad would offer difficulties because of the 
large staff of officials required for this purpose abroad and be¬ 
cause of the task of exercising the necessary supervision over 
these officials so as to prevent unfairness or dishonesty. 

Pending arrangement with foreign powers for examination 
abroad, various suggestions to obviate the difficulties were made. 
One suggestion was that the responsibility for examination 
should be definitely placed upon the transportation company 

9 


and that before a United States official abroad vises the pass¬ 
port of an immigrant, he should receive from the latter a medical 
certificate issued by a physician in the employ of the transporta¬ 
tion company. This certificate should show the members of 
the alien’s family and personal history and guarantee that he 
does not belong to the prohibited classes. It was also suggested 
that the American official abroad, before viseing the immigrant’s 
passport, should have certain information to the effect that the 
alien is provided with transportation to a specific destination, 
with cash reserve to take care of him for a reasonable time and 
that he is coming to fill a previously assigned job, or with the 
purpose to take up land, or with capital to go into some specific 
business. The consulates should also have definite information 
as to the labor situation in this country and should not grant 
vises to points where unemployment exceeds a certain limit. 
Another suggestion was that a means of arriving at adequate 
selection abroad would be to require of aliens advance notice 
of intention to settle permanently within the United States. 
A final suggestion with regard to examination abroad was that, 
until final arrangements could be effected for suitable examina¬ 
tion before embarkation, ships of American registry should be 
provided with examining physicians to examine the immigrant 
in transit and lessen the delay at the port of entry. It was 
pointed out, however, that physical examination of immigrants 
at principal ports abroad or in transit would not lessen the hard¬ 
ships of the immigrant who is turned back at the port of entry, 
because, in most cases, he has already sold his possessions when 
he arrives at the port of embarkation. 

While there was thus considerable doubt as to the suitable 
method of examination abroad, the principle of such examination 
was generally favored, especially in view of the feeling that cer¬ 
tain foreign countries were disposed to send their less desirable 
immigrants to the United States, and that, by such examination, 
the United States could better be protected against such 
undesirables. 

There was a general feeling that a quota law should be so 
administered as to prevent the separation of families and to 
provide for the admission of near relatives of aliens and of cer¬ 
tain other special classes without encroaching upon quotas fixed. 
It was believed that the separation of families at the port of 
entry due to the operation of the present quota law, and es- 

10 


pecially of the Cable Equal Citizenship law, had an unfavorable 
effect upon the morale of the alien. It was pointed out that an 
important factor to be considered in this connection was that 
the alien’s earnings are so largely sent abroad to support de¬ 
pendent relatives who could be better taken care of in the 
United States. The specific suggestions made in this respect 
were broadly that the immediate relatives, wife and children, 
mother and father, minor brothers and sisters, widowed sisters 
and fiances of naturalized aliens, or of those who had been in 
American six months and who had first citizenship papers, 
should be admitted. On the other hand, some speakers took 
issue with so broad a view of the problem. Some felt that there 
should be no exception to the quota law. If it were desirable 
to bring in wives and children, it would be better to make the 
quota large enough to include these. Others favored the type 
of provision made in the recent bill of the House Immigration 
Committee 1 ; namely, a special quota to be filled by relatives 
only. It was felt by some speakers that a limit should be placed 
upon the possible number to be allowed entrance under any 
provision for the admission of relatives and that study should 
first be made of the alien population inorder to determine whether 
relatives abroad would be among the dependent classes if brought 
into this country. It was suggested that relatives of immigrants 
who have come over during the last twenty-five years might 
not be the most desirable immigrants and that no law should 
be so framed as to allow them to come in large or unlimited 
numbers. 

The same general attitudes were expressed regarding the 
application of quota restrictions to resident aliens leaving the 
United States for temporary absence and to certain professional 
classes, etc. While some speakers held that resident aliens 
visiting abroad should be admitted, on their return within a 
year, without being charged to a quota, others held that the 
motive of a visit abroad should be taken into consideration. 
In the last year there were approximately 15,000 immigrants 
who would come under that classification. In all probability 
most of them had gone away with the intention of remaining 
abroad. Having found conditions in Europe unsatisfactory, 
they returned and asserted that they had never intended to stay 
away, and on this basis they were allowed to enter. It was sug- 
! H. R. 101, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session. 


gested that, for administrative purposes, aliens should be con¬ 
sidered as falling into two classes—those who have come to 
stay and those who come as visitors or travelers. All those who 
come to remain should be charged to a quota. There was a sug¬ 
gestion that if a quota exemption were allowed the professional 
class on the ground that they were more desirable than the 
ordinary immigrant, similar privileges of quota exemption should 
be extended to skilled artisans. Another suggestion in this 
connection was that political and religious refugees, such as 
Armenians, for example, should be admitted without being 
charged to the quota. 

The third important administrative question upon which 
emphasis was laid was that of fixing the maximum monthly 
quota and handling the question of aliens arriving after the 
national quotas for any month had been exhausted. There was 
a general feeling on the part of those who discussed these ques¬ 
tions that admissible aliens arriving after a monthly quota had 
been filled should be allowed entrance and charged to the next 
month’s quota. On the other hand, an official charged with 
the administration of the immigration law held that this was 
impossible from an administrative point of view. If the surplus 
of one month were held over to later months, the whole object 
of having a maximum monthly quota would be nullified. On 
the first of July the whole annual quota in some cases might 
arrive at American ports expecting to be charged to subse¬ 
quent months. 

This raised the question as to whether the division of the total 
annual quota into maximum monthly quotas should not be al¬ 
tered. Views varied on this question, some holding that the 
limit allowed per month should be reduced, others, that the 
present 20% monthly quota should be retained. One important 
suggestion was that it would be preferable to divide the total 
annual quota into twelve equal parts. In this way it was felt 
the race for port which takes place now under the present system, 
as well as the overcrowding at the ports of entry which occurs 
within the first five months of the fiscal year, would be avoided. 

The suggestion for a system of immigration certificates, as 
embodied in the Johnson Bill, 1 was offered by one speaker as the 
best method of solving the excess quota problem. According 
to this plan, the Secretary of State would issue each month 

J H. R. 101, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session. 

12 


immigration certificates numbered or lettered so that each 
month’s allotment would be distinct. These would be dis¬ 
tributed to the nationalities in the number determined upon 
by the quota. Immigrants who could satisfactorily fill out these 
certificates would receive the vise of the consul and might come 
to the United States at any time within the year. Since no more 
certificates would be issued than the maximum quota, there 
could be no excess of quota under this system. Having decided 
on a percentage which should be allowed during a given year, 
the United States officials abroad should be instructed to vise 
passports in the following order: 

1. The wife, husband, or minor children of an American 
citizen or alien who intends to stay in the United States; 

2. Skilled labor of the types of which there may be a shortage; 

3. Common labor of the types which the United States most 
needs. 

Several other suggestions for administrative modification were 
made. In several instances it was emphasized that a great deal 
of attention should be given to preventing the smuggling in of 
aliens along the border of the United States. An expert opinion 
was that from the administrative point of view the present law 
should be greatly simplified so as to allow considerable elasticity 
in administration. 

Percentage Restriction Features 

In judging the validity of the quota method of restriction, 
emphasis was laid on two major aspects of the problem; first, 
that of meeting the proper needs of American industrial develop¬ 
ment, and second, that of protecting the social, political and 
racial integrity of the United States, through a careful selection 
of aliens consonant with justice and humanity. 

While, in respect to the first point, some representatives 
pointed out the need for specific types of labor, others em¬ 
phasized the necessity of drawing upon unused reservoirs of 
manpower within the country, and of selecting immigrants for 
superior industrial qualities. The danger of creating within the 
country a large labor surplus, thereby aggravating the problem 
of unemployment, and the greater importance of quality rather 
than quantity from an economic point of view were stressed. 
It was felt that the method of quota restriction, as thus far 
developed, had not solved these problems. 

On the score of selection from the social and racial points of 

13 


view, also, the quota method was generally criticized. It had 
been so applied, in using the census of 1910 as a base, as to 
reduce the immigration from certain countries on the theory 
that these peoples were undesirable. Many speakers felt that 
this feature of the law was both scientifically unjustified and 
unjust to certain peoples whose representation in the country 
at the time was small, or whose national designations suffered 
change through the war. The discrimination against the south¬ 
ern and eastern Europeans was generally admitted to be open 
to question from both the economic and social points of view. 
The justification of this discrimination through studies of the 
proportion of defectives, delinquents or dependents of certain 
sub-races in institutions, and through army intelligence tests, 
was attacked as scientifically unsound. All agreed, however, 
upon the necessity of excluding individuals who, by reason of 
proven delinquency, disease, abnormality or other demonstrable 
defect, would endanger or burden American institutions, social 
life and racial health. Largely on these grounds various sug¬ 
gestions for change in the percentage restriction features were 
offered. 

The aspect of the percentage restriction feature of the present 
immigration law which provoked most discussion was the 
question as to what basis should be taken for the percentage 
quota. It was the general consensus that the actual percentage 
used was a less important question than the manner in which it 
was applied. There were no marked suggestions for a change 
of the percentage itself, although in one case a change from 
3 to 6% was suggested. It was felt that the numerical percent¬ 
age itself did not represent any scientific basis and that if the 
percentage mode of restiiction was to be continued, its applica¬ 
tion should be made more elastic. It was generally felt that a 
percentage restriction as heretofore applied under the immi¬ 
gration law could not easily be used to take account of the 
changing economic needs and social conditions of the United 
States and that to do this it would be necessary to modify its 
application by changes in the base used and in other ways. 
One suggestion made, for example, was that the President be 
given discretionary power to increase the quotas by not more 
than 50%, in case of need. 

The most important way of giving elasticity to the per¬ 
centage restrictions that occurred to most of the speakers was 

14 


that of changing the base to which the percentage is to be 
applied. This question was first considered as a problem of 
changing the census year for which the population of each 
nationality resident in the United States was to be reckoned. 

There were marked diversities of view as to the census year 
on which the percentage should be based. The question was 
approached from two viewpoints: First, that of the effect of a 
change upon labor supply, and second, the effect upon the racial 
composition of immigration in relation to the social welfare of 
the country. It was generally realized that putting the census 
year base back of 1910 meant both cutting down the total quan¬ 
tity of immigration and reducing the relative proportion of 
southern and eastern Europeans to the northern Europeans in 
our immigration. Those who were not desirous of seeing the 
quantity of immigration reduced opposed a change from the 
1910 basis, as did those who felt that any discrimination against 
southern and eastern Europeans was unjustified. There was a 
special protest against the use of any such change of base for the 
purpose of directly or indirectly excluding certain races, and this 
discussion raised again the whole problem of the soundness of 
current racial classifications on the basis of present scientific 
knowledge. It was also brought out in this connection that the 
classification of European peop’es by nationalities had been 
greatly changed as a result of the war, and that to use the 1890 
census as a base would constitute an injustice to certain peo¬ 
ples. For example, peoples of Slovak descent would, according 
to the 1890 census, be classed as Hungarians or Austrians. This 
was somewhat less true with regard to the 1910 census, but for 
strict fairness, the 1920 census should be used as a base. The 
use of the latest available census was also urged in one instance 
on the ground that business is done on a present day basis and 
that quota figures should be put upon an up-to-date basis as 
well. It was generally conceded that immigrants should be ex¬ 
cluded because of individual undesirability and not because of 
race. So far as there was a general consensus, it could be con¬ 
sidered as favoring a retention of the 1910 census as a base. 

The discussion of this aspect of the percentage restriction 
raised what was considered to be a more important question in 
this connection, namely, whether the percentage should be 
applied to the number of aliens of each nationality group resi¬ 
dent in the United States at any given census year or to the total 

15 


population in the United States for that year. In this discussion, 
the points of view brought out in the discussion of the preceding 
question were strongly emphasized. It was felt that any attempt 
to apply a percentage restriction on the basis of the alleged su¬ 
periority or inferiority of a given group of races or sub-races is 
both contrary to scientific fact and to fundamental ideals of the 
American Government and of broad humanity. If it were de¬ 
sired to reduce the number of immigrants, this could be done 
without dragging in any alleged differences of race value and 
thus opening the way to the play of race prejudice and sentiment. 
The study by Dr. H. H. Laughlin on “the Analysis of America’s 
Modern Melting Pot,” which has been extensively used as a 
scientific justification for the use of quota restrictions so as to 
exclude certain races, was especially attacked and its statistical 
accuracy questioned. It was felt, in general, even by those 
who favored considerable restriction of immigration, that any 
quota percentage should be applied to the total population 
rather than to nationalities. 

The question as to whether a percentage restriction should be 
applied to the net rather than the gross immigration was a ques¬ 
tion of particular interest to those especially concerned with 
the quantity of immigration. It was pointed out that the use 
of gross figures resulted in greatly overestimating the total 
amount of immigration coming into the country and brought 
about a situation with regard to the racial distribution of im¬ 
migration very different than was intended by the quota law, 
since certain nationalities which show a very high emigration, 
supply, for the most part, the more desirable immigrants. 

A third important suggestion in connection with the applica¬ 
tion of the percentage restriction was that naturalization rather 
than population or the number of residents of any nationality 
should be used as the base. This was substantially the recom¬ 
mendation made by President Coolidge in his first message, 
and it was favored by some representatives of special national 
groups as both more just and more favorable to the United 
States than any other basis. 

Other modifications of the application of the percentage re¬ 
striction was suggested. There was a demand that political 
and religious refugees be treated in a different way than ordinary 
immigrants. It is also suggested that there should be a separate 

16 


quota for relatives and special allowances for countries which, 
because of new national designations, were not represented in 
the 1910 census. 

Selection , Distribution and Assimilation 

Although all of those who attended the Conference were 
generally in favor of improved methods of selecting, distributing 
and assimilating immigrants, there was a wide diversity of 
views as to practicable and desirable methods of achieving these 
ends. The Canadian system of selective immigration was gen¬ 
erally praised for the way in which it attempts to meet these 
aspects of the problem, especially for the elasticity of its ad¬ 
ministration and for the manner in which it provides for selection 
on the basis of the economic needs of the country. Various 
methods by which similar purposes could be achieved in this 
country were discussed. 

It was not generally felt that the solution of these problems 
could be safely or effectively left to a Federal Immigration 
Board. While it was felt that it would probably be impossible 
to make the administration of the immigration laws sufficiently 
flexible without some kind of general board, anfd that any sort 
of quality tests and limitation within those tests implies a body 
to establish the tests and determine the needs of the country 
according to changing circumstances, the creation of an Im¬ 
migration Board with wide regulatory powers like those under 
the Canadian system, would raise constitutional problems and 
create new political difficulties. It was suggested that the 
machinery for substantially this sort of administration already 
exists and that the Secretaries of Labor, Agriculture and Com¬ 
merce could cooperate in a methodical way in connection with 
the regulation of immigration, provided there were sufficient 
elasticity in the law so that such a body could exercise flexible 
control. 

The need of such flexibility was especially emphasized in re¬ 
lation to the contract labor law. There was a general feeling 
that the present law in this respect did not fully meet the needs 
of the country. The restriction of its application to highly 
skilled labor was considered too narrow. It was felt that there 
was an irreconcilable inconsistency between the prohibitions 
under the contract labor law and the general principle of selec¬ 
tive immigration. Such selection, it was felt, implied at least two 

17 


general requirements; first, that workers should be informed 
of openings for them in this country, and secondly, should be 
distributed in districts where there would be work for them. 

The need for and value of more rigid tests for admission on 
the basis of literacy, intelligence, etc., was generally questioned. 
It was felt that the value of the literacy test was open to doubt. 
Literacy itself could not be considered as a conclusive test of 
the value of any immigrant. The test should rather be his 
character and ability to understand American institutions. 
These qualities could be fairly tested only after residence in the 
country for some time and should be applied, therefore, as a 
prerequisite to naturalization rather than to admission. It was 
felt that the tests provided in the present law to exclude more 
obviously undesirable classes of diseased, delinquent and defec¬ 
tive, were adequate to the purpose if thoroughly enforced. 

The discussion of naturalization in connection with the pre¬ 
ceding questions raised the whole problem of the bearing of 
registration upon naturalization, distribution and assimilation 
of immigrants. There was a sharp division of opinion on the 
desirability of a system of registration applied to aliens. Regis¬ 
tration was urged by some as a practical means of assisting the 
distribution, assimilation and naturalization of aliens. It was 
pointed out that registration could be used with great advantage 
in connection with the education of aliens. A suggestion was 
also made that registration of aliens could also be made a part 
of a general registration system much needed for census, 
voting and other purposes. On the other hand, there was a 
strong opposition to the system of registration of the alien on. 
the ground that it would prejudice the alien against American 
institutions, create great injustice and hardships, build up an 
espionage system, and tend to develop a sense of hostility and 
suspicion toward the Government. It was felt that for these 
reasons especially, registration would interfere with the educa¬ 
tion and true Americanization of the alien. The workings of 
the Chinese registration law were pointed to as an example of 
the danger of such a system. It was suggested also that an 
extensive registration system would involve the creation of 
enormous bodies of officials to administer to it, in view of the 
large number of aliens who would be subject to surveillance. 
Some of those who opposed the principle of registration, how¬ 
ever, felt that some of the objections might be removed if a 


proper system were worked out. One suggestion was that 
registration be required at the time when an alien announces 
his intention of becoming a citizen and be directly connected 
with the process of naturalization. 

The specific suggestion in connection with surveillance of 
immigrants, namely, that they should be prohibited from 
settling in large cities for a period, met with little favor. While 
the evils of urban congestions were generally recognized, it was 
pointed out that the movement from country to city is not due 
entirely to immigration, but rather to the development of the 
industrial system in this country. It was not considered prac¬ 
ticable to apply any such method of distributing immigrants. 
They come to this country, as a rule, with very definite plans 
of joining relatives and might be entirely helpless if they were 
refused residence in places where their relatives are already 
living. This problem was considered generally as part of the 
larger problem of the distribution of immigrants, and it was 
not felt that it could be solved by any such simple method. 

In the discussion of the problem of selection, distribution and 
assimilation, the greatest emphasis was laid throughout on the 
need for more rigid educational and other requirements for 
admission to citizenship. It was suggested that the probationary 
period should be lengthened and that more should be done to 
educate the alien than is done at present. The process of natu¬ 
ralization should be made more dignified and greater uniformity 
achieved in its administration. It was suggested that federal 
aid be extended to municipalities in connection with immigrant 
education, because of the undue burden that was placed upon 
certain cities where immigrants congregate. It was felt, how¬ 
ever, that immigrant education should not be made compulsory 
because of the difficulties of enforcement. Special emphasis 
was laid on the necessity of protecting aliens against exploita¬ 
tion which so frequently begins at the port of entry and con¬ 
tinues until the immigrant becomes thoroughly familiar with 
our language and methods of doing business. 

The Need for a Commission of Investigation 

It was generally agreed that there was need for extensive and 
accurate and up-to-date information on the economic, social and 
racial aspects of immigration. While some representatives felt 
that such information could be secured through existing agen- 

19 


cies, there was a general view that the time had come for the 
creation of a new Immigration Commission for investigation of 
the problem as broadly as had been done by the Immigration 
Commission of 1907. This need was emphasized by the con¬ 
sideration that, since the last comprehensive investigation of 
the subject, many new questions and conditions had arisen on 
which the existing information throws little light, or is subject 
to varying interpretations, and which existing governmental 
departments would be ill-prepared to handle. This is particu¬ 
larly true of the biological aspects of the question. The eco¬ 
nomic position of the country and its international relations 
have also greatly changed, so that the character of the immi¬ 
gration problem is today no longer the same in its essential 
aspects as it was fifteen years ago when the last governmental 
investigation was under way. Not only was the need for a new 
investigation emphasized, but it was suggested that, instead of 
a commission like that of 1907, which operated under handicap 
of time, we should rather have a permanent board gathering 
information scientifically and systematically. The results of 
their study should not be given out in a haphazard way in con¬ 
nection with immediate legislation, but should be continually 
added to- the body of facts on the subject and sufficient time 
to interpret these facts should be allowed. 

Finally, the Conference emphasized the need of a broad¬ 
minded recognition of the complexity of the immigration 
problem as it confronts the United States today, and the need 
for approaching it in a scientific manner, apart from prejudice, 
in the interests of the economic, social and racial welfare of 
the country. 


20 


I 


THURSDAY MORNING SESSION 
December 13, 1923 

The First Session of the National Immigration Conference convened 
at 10.30 A. M. at the Astor Hotel , in New York City , 

Frederick P. Fish , of Boston , presiding. 

Chairman Fish: It is a great satisfaction and a great 
privilege to work with you in this conference. The subject 
which we are to consider is, of course, one of prime importance 
from every point of view and to every class in the community. 
The future of our country depends upon the kind of people that 
we build up as the population of this great land. 

As this meeting has been called by the National Industrial 
Conference Board, I think it desirable to say a word as to that 
Board, its attitude and the spirit in which this meeting has been 
brought together. 

The Conference Board is now in its eighth year, and, as you 
very likely know, it is organized, to quote from the resolution 
which fixes its program: 

“to provide a bureau of scientific research, a clearing house 
of information, a forum for discussion and the means whereby 
cooperative action may be taken on matters that vitally 
affect the industrial development of the country and all en¬ 
gaged in industry, and to promote the public welfare by 
bringing together the collective experience of those engaged 
in industry, by studying industrial and economic conditions 
and by disseminating well considered views thereon as its 
contribution to the solution of the problems of industry.” 

The National Industrial Conference Board is made up of in¬ 
dustrialists, having among its members representatives of thirty- 
one of the national trade associations of this country. It speaks 
from the point of view of the industrialist, from his experience, 
from his intimate knowledge of industrial affairs, and from his 
general knowledge as to what is essential for the well-being of 
the country as well as of industry itself. 

It is, however, fundamental to the Board that it does not 
approach from a narrow point of view any of the great questions 
with which it deals. It recognizes, as every citizen in this 

21 


country should recognize, that the first and foremost matter to 
have in mind in all such considerations is the welfare of the 
country as a whole, not its immediate conditions of today, but 
that great future which we hope this country will have. 

This means that wherever the Board is dealing with any of 
these questions, there must be an absence of that kind of sordid 
selfishness which would be certain to render worthless such in¬ 
vestigations as it makes. On the other hand, there is not ex¬ 
cluded the element of intelligent self-interest, for if these matters 
are considered broadly and thoroughly, it appears certain that 
the best results will come when each portion of the community 
recognizes, as it must, its own situation, its own aspirations and 
its own needs, and presents these fairly and honorably to the 
community, recognizing the rights of every other class in the 
community, and realizing that its own advantage is intimately 
bound up with the general advantage. 

The matter of immigration is, of course, one of the great prob¬ 
lems of the day. For nearly 150 years this country has been 
growing and developing. Its population has increased by the 
excess of births over deaths, accentuated at the present time 
by the fact that men live longer today than they did, 30, 40, 
50 or 100 years ago. But it has also largely increased by immi¬ 
gration from foreign countries. We have a field of enormous 
extent which was wide open for such immigration, and for many 
years the question was not a troublesome one. We wanted to 
have the additional population, and we got it. 

Our farms have been built up largely by the foreigners who 
have become citizens of the United States. Our industries have 
largely relied upon them for the workmen, skilled and unskilled, 
who were essential to development. But conditions have 
changed in many ways. The class of immigration, of course, 
has changed, and we are more nearly approaching what may 
be called a point of saturation as far as population is concerned. 
That is, we cannot go increasing at an indefinite rate, because 
our facilities will sometime be exhausted. 

Under those circumstances, it is of the utmost importance 
that every one of us should realize the prime necessity that our 
population should be built up in the best way for the country, 
that we should have a virile, intelligent people who are inclined 
to recognize each other’s rights, who are law abiding, and who 

22 


are generally willing to produce and work in the interests of the 
entire community. 

That is the fundamental point of view from which every class 
in the community has to deal with this proposition. The in¬ 
dustrialists recognize strongly that this is the aspect that is 
of prime importance. Of course, they approach the matter with 
a special knowledge and with a special relation, because they 
rely at the present time largely upon the foreigners for the work 
that must be done by some one; but the question of maintaining 
our industries in a prosperous and stable condition is of prime 
importance, not only to the industries themselves, but also to 
the well-being of the community. It is a question which must 
be solved by careful investigation of every phase of the situa¬ 
tion, in order that there may be no mistake made by giving 
undue attention to one side rather than the other. 

The Conference Board felt that this was a legitimate field for 
its characteristic work; first, to get together as many of the facts 
as possible bearing upon the question, that they may be avail¬ 
able for future use; next, for sound inference from those facts 
that are known; and third, for the exercise of that sane imagina¬ 
tion which will be able to correlate all of the facts, to see that 
none are overlooked, and to get at facts that are concealed, by a 
proper analysis of those that are known, and by drawing the 
necessary inferences from those that are known to those that 
are unknown. 

The Conference Board has made a study of this matter of 
immigration, the result of which, up to date, is recorded in one 
of its publications. The farther we went along with this study, 
the more certain it seemed to us that the entire matter had not 
yet been brought up before the community in such a way as to 
count as it should in the direction of sound solution of all these 
problems. 

It isn’t enough to collect facts, because if only certain facts 
are collected, then there may be a series of other facts and sta¬ 
tistics from which inferences may be drawn which will be utterly 
different from those drawn from the facts and statistics that 
happen to be collected. It isn’t enough that there should be 
merely the private thought of individuals, based upon their 
study of facts. There ought to be a development of active at¬ 
tention on the part of the entire community, that every phase 
of this great question may be readily apprehended and the con- 

23 


tributions of every one who is capable of contributing anything 
may be available for the ultimate solution of this great problem. 

We are now trying an experiment in legislation which is in a 
direction contrary to that which has prevailed during most of 
the 150 years in which we have been a nation. It seemed to the 
Conference Board that it was desirable to bring together a group 
of people who are interested in this subject, who would deal 
with it intelligently and sanely on right lines, in order that there 
might be the stimulus of discussion, that there might be the 
certainty of getting as many views as was possible, and that 
then the Conference Board itself would be in a better position 
to proceed with its work of investigation and analysis, its work 
of drawing inferences; and that the public who participated in 
the Conference, or who knew of its work, would also be in better 
position to cooperate toward a definite result. 

At the present time the Conference Board has no program. 
It is simply endeavoring to get at the facts, to make a sound 
analysis of the facts, to overlook nothing, to be certain that 
those conclusions that it would naturally draw from certain 
facts with which it is familiar are not such as would be over¬ 
thrown by the knowledge of other facts which have not yet been 
studied. In other words, there is no direction in which we can 
think or work that should not be pressed and developed to the 
limit, in order that we may be as certain as possible to make no 
mistakes. 

For this Conference we have laid out a general plan 
which seems to us, on the whole, likely to lead to a more business¬ 
like and a more definite consideration of the important questions 
involved than any other. 

To shape the discussion, we have drawn four major proposi¬ 
tions, in connection with which it seems to us that every single 
possible question that can come up and that is of real interest, 
in connection with this matter of immigration, can be developed 
and presented. 

First of all, there should be a statement to the Conference 
which will give a background for this discussion, there should be 
a statement of the problem as it exists today, and the direction 
in which we should think and in which ultimately there should 
be action in order to deal with this great problem. 

Mr. Magnus W. Alexander, Managing Director of the Nation¬ 
al Industrial Conference Board, who, with the Research Staff 

24 


of the Board, has given extended and careful attention to the 
immigration problem, will open the conference with a presen¬ 
tation of the immigration situation, a review of the history of 
immigration and a consideration of the nature of the problem. 

“The Development and Major Aspects of the Immigration Problem ” by 
Magnus W. Alexander, Managing Director of the National 
Industrial Conference Board. 

Mr. Alexander: The immigration problem occupies today 
a foremost place in our national mind. It does so quite apart 
from the fact that the present Per Centum Limit Act, under 
which the inflow of immigration to the United States is largely 
regulated, will expire by statutory limitation six months hence 
and will be abandoned or must be continued in its present or in 
a modified form or be supplanted by legislation of a different 
character. Nor is the attention to immigration by the public 
merely due to the fact that the effects of the present law have 
aroused considerable difference of opinion in regard to the law 
itself and have received much consideration in the press. The 
discussion of the immigration problem at present is rather the 
culmination of more than a century’s debate in which emotions 
have fought a tug of war with reason. 

Even before our government had begun the collection of 
official immigration statistics, a hundred years ago, the question 
of the alien in the United States was already attracting atten¬ 
tion. On September 16, 1788, three days after announcement 
that the Constitution of the United States had been adopted 
by the requisite number of states, the General Government 
directed that presidential electors should be chosen; fixed 
March 4, 1789, as the time for the new government to begin, 
and unanimously adopted a resolution “that it be, and it is 
hereby, recommended to the several states to pass laws for 
preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from 
foreign countries into the United States.” In his correspondence 
with John Adams, then United States Minister to the British 
Government, President Washington discussed with him his 
attitude on immigration and gave him instructions in regard 
thereto. And since that time our statesmen have continued to 
think and write about, and struggle with, this human problem. 

Today, immigration is more than a debatable economic, 
sociological or political question. It is all of these, but essen¬ 
tially a race question—a question of the kind of citizenship and 

25 


national life which we desire to develop in the United States. 

An outstanding feature in oui federal immigration policies is 
the obvious intent of our legislators in all periods to limit the 
inflow of aliens into the United States largely to those races 
already present in dominant numbers. Realizing that the white 
race, quite apart from the country of origin, is the race that 
settled and developed the United States and that, except for 
the few Indians, the black race is the only other race which 
cart be regarded as having a stake in our nation, our legislators 
have altogether excluded or at least severely restricted the entry 
of the brown and yellow races, and denied citizenship to the few 
who were admitted. 

But even in respect to immigration of the white race, and 
that means essentially immigration of European origin, there 
has at all times been a dominant feeling in favor of extending 
the foreign national groups which first came in large numbers, 
and against the settlement of new foreign nationalities in the 
United States. Thus, the statesmen of the early 19th century 
warned publicly against the danger to national development on 
account of the newer immigration of the Irish and the Ger¬ 
mans; and the great movement of these to the United States in 
the years immediately preceding the Civil War brought against 
them the same charges that are now daily being leveled against 
the Italians, Slavs, Poles, Greeks and other southern and 
eastern Europeans. Yet the Irish and German immigrants, 
and many of the “newer” racial groups, are now recognized as 
among our most desirable citizens and their names are promi¬ 
nently and creditably identified with all phases of our political, 
economic and social life. 

Confining this discussion primarily to immigration of Euro¬ 
pean origin, which is our national concern at present, let us 
briefly then examine the movement and character of this im¬ 
migration and, guided by the story of the past, endeavor to look 
intelligently into the future. 

Official figures of immigration are not available back of the 
year 1820; in that year, when our population numbered 9,638,453, 
the total immigration was 8,385. Year by year it grew until in 
1842 it had crossed the 100,000 mark with 104,565 immigrants, 
and in 1854 the 400,000 mark had been passed. Then came a 
falling off, so much so that during the Civil War the country 

26 


# 


IMMIGRATION AND POPULATION 

UNITED STATES 


COPYRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


THOUSANDS 

l,4D0 


1,500 


1,000 


LONG TIME TREND OF IMMIGRATION 


800 


BOO 


400 


500 



1850 1830 1840 1650 IBEO 1870 1800 1060 1600 1610 1650 


PARENTAGE OF POPULATION 



1920 

105,710, BSD —100 % 




UNITED STATES BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION\ 
UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU J 


M/.CB.WALL CHART SERVICE-NO. 75 

FEBRUARY, !9S* 


27 





























































experienced a serious labor shortage on account of which the 
Federal Government passed a law* favorable to the entrance of 
foreign labor induced to come to the United States under 
contract. 

With the impetus to industrial development that came in the 
years after the Civil War and with the rapid expansion of our 
railroad system and consequent opening of new territory, im¬ 
migration took a new spuit, and in the year 1882 the number 
of aliens arriving was close to 800,000. For more than twenty 
years immigration remained between the 800,000 and the 
1,000,000 mark, but in each of the years 1905, 1906, 1907, 1910, 
1913 and 1914, over a million immigrants came into the United 
States. The highest point was reached in 1907, when 1,285,349 
arrived, but the figure for 1914 was only slightly lower with 
1,218,480 immigrants. During the recent World War, as might 
naturally be expected, immigration fell to a low level, but in 
the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1921, it was again 805,228 
and the subsequent falling off in immigration is directly at¬ 
tributable to the Per Centum Limit Act which became operative 
in May, 1921. 

Looking broadly over this century of immigration flow and 
ebb, we may note an interesting factor, namely, that even before 
there was any legal restriction on immigration, the immigration 
movement was in a sense its own regulator. Immigration con¬ 
sidered in relation to business activity shows that in years of 
prosperity the inflow was in the ascendant, but when business 
activity fell off, immigration also declined, as in respect to the 
panic years of 1837, 1873, 1884, 1893 and 1907 which were each 
followed by a marked decline in immigration. Not only has 
the immigration movement been responsive to the broad flow of 
business conditions, but it has also moved with seasonal con¬ 
ditions. 

In a sense, too, immigration has been its own selector , in that 
good conditions in a major branch of our industry automatically 
stimulated immigration of peoples accustomed to that type of 
work; and, conversely, emigration was increased during a busi¬ 
ness setback. 

Apart, however, from this cyclical and seasonal movement in 
immigration, there has been noticeable a marked change in the 
character and content of the immigrant stream. The early 

*13th Statutes at Large, p. 385. 

28 


IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION 

BY MONTHS -UNITED STATES 


COPYRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


AL IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION 



1307 '00 03 'ID 'll 12 13 14 15 'IB 17 10 13 '20 '21 22 23 24 

; NDS NET IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION 



1307 OB '03 ID 'll IE 13 '14 '15 'IB 17 10 13 '20 '21 '22 23 24 


*?•* . 


(source united states bureau or immigration) 


29 














































































































































































immigrants were all from one section of Europe; they came from 
the^countries bordering on the North Sea and the English 
Channel. Until the period of the Civil War this older immi¬ 
gration in the course of time was the dominant inflow of aliens 
into the United States and even in the decade from 1861 to 
1870 the average annual immigration from Europe was still 
98.4% of the “old” type from northern and western, and only 
1.6% of the “new” type from southern and eastern Europe. 
Gradually this “new” immigration increased in numbers and in 
proportion so that in the decade 1891 to 1900 it was already 
greater than that from northern and western Europe, and in 
each successive decade the percentage increased until the Per 
Centum Limit Act of May 19, 1921, sought to turn, and gradu¬ 
ally turned the tide the other way. 

Because the “old” and the “new” immigration occupies so 
prominent a part in the discussion of the immigration problem, 
it may be of some value to examine the outstanding character¬ 
istics of each of these groups. These characteristics have raised 
important questions of racial intermixture in respect to which 
conclusive evidence is not now available. 

Ethnologically, the “old” immigrants are of the same racial 
stock as the majority of the people already in the United 
States, while the “new” immigrants are unlike the Teutonic, 
Anglo-Saxon or Celtic stock. Politically, the two groups have 
a different history. While Great Britain, Germany and the 
Scandinavian countries were limited monarchies during the 
period when their largest emigration took place, they afforded a 
background of political tradition similar to that in this country, 
and their nationals showed an interest in, and understanding of, 
democratic government. This was not the case with the im¬ 
migration from southern and eastern Europe, where the govern¬ 
ments were generally more autocratic, less stable, and where a 
considerable part of the population was illiterate. To the 
majority of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe life 
under democratic institutions was a new experience. In addi¬ 
tion, there is a marked distinction between the religious faiths 
of the two groups. The Scandinavian, English, Scotch and 
German immigrants are mostly Protestants, and the Irish for 
the main part Catholics, while the “new” immigrants are largely 
of Greek or Roman Catholic or of Jewish faith. Finally, the 
“old” immigration has shown a tendency to stay in the United 

30 


kk 


OLD 'and "NEW" EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION 

UNITED STATES 

COPYRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


,2l 



PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRATION 

"NEW" "□LD" 



5 MONTHS 
ENDING 
NOVEMBER 30 


I92?l 

171.756 r 


1323 

£96,95! 


65.4 % 112.244 


43.4 V. 126,700 


[ ' '34.5V59,51^-1 

S6 B % - IBB.243 . 

■.- - - - - - .- - - ■ 


OURCC3 


. 

. UNITED STATES BUREAU OE IMMIBPAT/ON 
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 
RESEARCH RFPnOT NO. SB 




NI.C.B. WALL CHART SLRVICE NO. 47 

REVISED TO FEBRUARY, I92A 






































States, whereas immigration from and emigration to south¬ 
eastern Europe has been more quickly responsive to businses 
conditions in the United States. It is this latter immigration in 
which the so-called “birds of passage,” or immigrants who come 
when opportunities open for work and leave as soon as their 
earning power is threatened, are most abundant. 

As to the value of the past immigration to our national de¬ 
velopment, there is much doubt and divergence of opinion among 
students of the problem. Many hold that this great immigrant 
stream of over 36,000,000 foreigners into the United States in 
the last 100 years had its great value, and that through it the 
United States has been aided in building up its productive ac¬ 
tivities and in attaining its dominant industrial position. 
Within the century since 1820, however, vast changes have taken 
place in the economic and social structure of the United States 
as well as in the character of the immigration stream itself; 
and the benefits from immigration have in part been offset by 
certain deleterious effects. The fact that, barring a few short 
periods of business depression, the immigration influx has 
readily been absorbed in the past would seem to warrant the 
assumption that the excess of births over deaths in the resident 
population alone was not sufficient to meet the growing need 
for an adequate labor supply, commensurate with economic 
demand and industrial growth. This need was met in part by 
influx from abroad of virile manpower required for labor on 
farms, in factories, in mines and in the fields of transportation, 
commerce and trade generally. 

Many of these immigrants, accustomed to a lower standard of 
living than prevailed in the United States, have been willing 
at first to work at lower wages, which made it possible to build 
up infant industries until these became strong enough to meet 
the demand for a normal wage. At times also, immigrant 
groups have brought with them special ability in new fields of 
production and have thus helped to create and develop new in¬ 
dustries here. On the other hand, the increasing medley of 
foreign tongues and customs, especially in more recent decades, 
has made for difficulties in government that were quite unknown 
in previous periods. The large number of immigrants created 
serious problems in housing and in sanitary control, particularly 
in the larger cities; and due to their different Old World environ¬ 
ments and social status, the different kinds of immigrants have 

32 


IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION 

BY OCCUPATIONS-UNITED STATES 

COPVRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

I I TOTAL EMIGRATION 

NET EMIGRATION 


NEW YORK CITY 

I ' I TOTAL IMMIGRATION 
■■■ NET IMMIGRATION 


THOU 3 AND 8 TOTAL 

1,300 


LABORERS 





MISCELLANEOUS 

OCCUPATIONS 



■1001 


o □ —-— i\j cu c\j cu 


. FARMERS AND 
thousands FARM LABORERS 



-100 

-200 


lano-iunTincDi-oina-Nn 

--— (U1VJ cu CXJ 


PROFES SIONA L 



1 

r t 







- 






~i 

1 
















| 

































oma 
ao — 

-wnYintOMom 

□ — cvj n 

(U CU CU CU 


NO OCCUPATION 



(source, united states bureau or immigration 

riaouARY, rap 4 


33 


































































































































































































































































































often brought their standards of living in conflict with those of 
other immigrants as well as with those of the natives. Finally, 
the changing content of the immigration stream from an essen¬ 
tially northern and western, in the first half of the last century, 
to a largely southern and eastern European complexion during 
the last few decades, has brought in its wake serious questions 
of a social, economic and political character. 

1 Opposed to this view of the value of immigration, especially 
in later decades, there are those who hold that our material 
progress would have been greater without all or the larger part 
of this immigration, and that our social and political life would 
thereby have developed along finer lines. They point out that, 
being endowed with a great abundance of natural resources, the 
United States has progressed so phenomenally because this 
progress took place in a period when science and technology 
were just being made available for industrial purposes to men 
who enjoyed an unusual degree of freedom in utilizing their 
initiative and ingenuity, unhampered by class or caste restric¬ 
tions; and the resultant economic development in the last fifty 
to seventy years was greater than that which had been made 
during the whole of our history preceding that time. From 
these premises, they reason that the immigrants came to 
the United States in such large numbers because of our country’s 
great economic progress; and instead of having caused this 
progress and contributed to it, they actually deterred it. For, 
so long as there was available an abundant supply of cheap 
labor, the incentive for developing and installing labor-saving 
machinery and processes and raising individual efficiency was 
stifled. “Necessity is the mother of invention,” and necessity 
was largely absent. Our technology might, therefore, have been 
more advanced, our productive efficiency much greater, and our 
output and wealth more substantial today in the absence of 
this great flood of past immigration. 

These conflicting opinions on one of the major premises of 
the value of immigration to our national life can be resolved 
into generally acceptable conclusions only by a full knowledge 
of all the facts involved in the problems; yet this knowledge is 
lacking. 

As stated, since the establishment of our federal government 
immigration has been a live issue, varying in nature with the 
changing phases of our political, social and economic life and 


34 


EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION and EMIGRATION 

BY COUNTRIES - UNITED STATES 


COPYRIGHTED BY 


NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


JTOTAL IMMIGRATION 
■ NET IMMIGRATION 


I 1 NET EMIGRATION 


TOTAL EMIGRATION 


TOTAL EUROPE 



THQU3AN03 AUSTRIA and HUNGARY 
40 D 


ITALY 



RUSSIA and FINLAND 



300 

200 


GERMANY 



cncno — ajrjTj-incor-cotno — cum 
□ a- cucvjcxjcu 

UNITED KINGDOM 





















































































n ill' 






cacna — cun^-inaDr^cotna — aim 
a □ - tucvjcu cu 

SCANDINAVIA 






[T 






















imnn 









oiJia - cvjrwmtnr-aDcno — cvj m 

□ O-CUOJCVICVJ 


f £8 BUtDK 1904 


. sauna umca situs suoctu or immicoaiion ) 


Net immigration from other European countries not shown separately 
on this chart amounted to 59,538 in 1923 


35 





















































































































































































































































































with the content and volume of the immigration stream. The 
problem has been met at various times and with varying success 
by legislative enactments prompted by political, social or eco¬ 
nomic interests. The attempt to formulate a more comprehen¬ 
sive governmental policy was given expression in more recent 
times in the splendid work of the United States Immigration 
Commission of 1907 and in resultant legislation, especially in 
the Act of 1917. However, the later enactment of May, 1921— 
the Per Centum Limit Act—introduced a new principle in immi¬ 
gration control with which there has been limited experience. 

Immigration from European countries is at present controlled 
and regulated by the Per Centum Limit Act and its amendments 
which supplement existing laws that aim to prevent the admis¬ 
sion of the physically and mentally defective, delinquent, 
criminal and illiterate, and of those arriving as contract laborers. 
This Act, by setting up a percentage (at present 3%) of the total 
foreign-born population of each nationality resident in the 
United States at a given period (at present the census year 
1910) as a gauge by which to limit the flow of immigration, in¬ 
troduced a new principle in American immigration control. 
The Per Centum Limit Act, unless extended, will expire by legal 
limitation on June 30, 1924. The early development of an ade¬ 
quate immigration policy is thus an immediate and vital need. 

What shall this basic immigration policy be ? A broad social 
view dictates that those who are likely to become dependents or 
a burden on those already here, or who are likely to have a harm¬ 
ful influence on the character of the present or future population, 
should be kept out. In order to remove the injustice of the 
landing of such inadmissible immigrants, comprehensive federal 
laws designed to prevent the landing of such classes, have al¬ 
ready been enacted. In respect to the value of these provisions 
and their proper enforcement there can be no question. In 
addition, illiterates have been barred because of apprehension 
that they would be exploited and might become undesirables. 
Thus, these exclusion acts are negatively selective; they aim to 
draw a line below which the quality of immigration shall not fall. 

A broad, economic view dictates that we should admit a suffi¬ 
cient number of immigrants to meet our industrial requirements 
in normal years; but it dictates also that we should not admit 
in excess of these requirements. Otherwise we would flood the 
country with labor that cannot be regularly employed and whose 

36 


IMMIGRATION-UNITED STATES 

TERRITORY COVERED BY IMMIGRATION LAWS 

COPYRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


TERRITORY COVERED BY 
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS 



r.1 CHINESE EXCLUSION ACTS beginning IBB2 / 

I 1 JAPANESE GENTLEMENS AGREEMENT-IS07 
RKSS ASIATIC BARRED ZONE-1917 
■■I PER CENTUM LIMIT ACT - 1921 


EZZJ UNRESTRICTED 



INRESTRICTED 
TERRITORY/ 
/ 193,972 / 

30 . 3 % // 


ASIATIC V 
ZONE —* 


JAPAN 

3.B09 


TERRITORY COVERED BY 
PER CENTUM LIMIT ACT 
3II.B35 
53 . 67 . 


(SOURCE: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION) 
TEBOUARY, 1924 ' 


37 










presence might exert harmful effects on existing standards and 
social conditions. 

Within recent years the need of limiting immigration in re¬ 
spect to numbers to a point where the arrivals would not become 
an economic or social liability, has been stiongly asserting itself. 
The question, therefore, arises: How can we get that immigra¬ 
tion which is necessary to our continued economic development 
and, which, at the same time, will neither intensify present eco¬ 
nomic, social or political problems nor create new ones ? The 
United States cannot for the present entirely close its doors to 
immigration, even if ultimately that may be the sound policy; 
the country’s very existence is dependent on the operation and 
steady development of its various industries and the crux of 
industrial operation is an adequate labor supply. Can this 
supply be drawn from the resident population alone ? 

Recent federal statistics of births and deaths show that for 
some time our population has annually increased at a rate of 
about 10 persons per 1,000 population. This has proved in¬ 
sufficient to meet the increasing demands of our national 
economy or of the requirements of an adequate world trade. 
On the basis of an excess of 10 births over deaths annually 
and with an estimated population of the United States of about 
110,000,000 persons at the beginning of 1920, the increase in 
the resident population for that year amounted to about 
1,100,000. These newcomers, however, are not available for im¬ 
mediate productive requirements; they constitute the maximum 
potential native labor supply about sixteen years later when they 
shall have attained working age. According to vital statistics 
not more than 75% of these may be expected to survive till 
sixteen and many of these will not be gainfully employed. 
Existing population statistics in the United States show that of 
the entire population not more than twovfifths are engaged in 
gainful occupations. If this same proportion prevailed for the 
1,100,000 excess of births over deaths in 1920, it would mean 
that less than 400,000 survivors might be available for gainful 
employment sixteen years later. Such a number, even if it con¬ 
stituted those available for immediate needs, would seem en¬ 
tirely inadequate, since all working activities have, in addition 
to the available resident labor supply, readily assimilated an 
average of 627,000 persons each year since 1900, and manu¬ 
facturing and mechanical trades, agiiculture, mining and 

38 


IMMIGRATION under PER CENTUM LIMIT ACT 

UNITED STATES 

TO JANUARY 31,1924 

COPYRIGHTED BY 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

UNITED NEW YORK CITY 




AUSTRIA 



□ 

JULA 


mm 

S O N D JTtoAMT 


13U0TA 
" 7,342 f 



flUQTA 
7,413 B 


JUGOSLAVIA 



UOTA 


“V6.4SB 0 


JUN. JULA S D N D J F MAMJUN. JUL.ASONDJ fMAMJUN. 


FRANCE ouota 

5.729 


'Msm 

JULA S 0 N D J F MAM JUN. 


[source united states bureau of IMMIGRATION') 
N./.C.&. WALL CHART SERVICE-NO. T7 

FEBRUARY, I&S4 




39 
















































































































































































































transportation alone absorbed an average of nearly 500,000 per¬ 
sons each year since 1900. Sixteen years hence, with a normal 
increase in population and a steady growth in domestic and 
foreign demands on our farms, factories and other productive 
agencies, these 400,000 new workers at the most, from our 
native population increase in 1920 alone, will be the more in¬ 
adequate, unless ways and means should meanwhile be found 
more fully to replace manpower by machine-power and to in¬ 
crease generally the efficiency of the available labor forces and 
of management. 

What we need under such circumstances, either now or in the 
near future, in the way of supplementing our native labor forces 
by immigration is not known, for the needs of normally function¬ 
ing industry and commerce are not known; how far improved 
machinery and methods, increased efficiency and new inventions 
will be able to supplant the need for immigrant labor is largely 
a matter of conjecture. Yet these factors, the crux of the eco¬ 
nomic aspect of immigration, should first be determined by an 
adequate nation-wide investigation before a material change 
in the number of immigrants is decreed by law. 

Second only in importance to the fixing of a basis for immi¬ 
gration, is the distribution of immigrants after their arrival 
and the facilitating of their adjustment to American life and in¬ 
stitutions. The questions involved in such control, distribution 
and assimilation are, and for years have been, perplexing and 
no feasible plan has so far been presented that generally com¬ 
mends itself. Yet the economic and social progress of the 
country’s development is dependent on the accretion of the 
'right kind of individuals. A democracy can function effectively 
only if it is able to mould its people into common ways of thought 
and action. 

Looking broadly at the immigration problem and giving due 
weight to the influx of over thirty-six million immigrants during 
the last hundred years and its undoubted influence on the 
enormous economic growth of the United States to its present 
development, but also to the biological effect which it may have 
had in the creation of a virile nation, and equally recognizing 
the tendency to deleterious effects from such immigration, we 
cannot lose sight of the fact that we shall in time approach a 
saturation point in the need for immigrants from foreign coun¬ 
tires. It must be self-evident, furthermore, that there must 

40 


NATIONALITY OF FOREIGN POPULATION 

UNITED 5TATES 


COPYRIGHTED 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

NEW YORK CITY 


EUROPE 


“NE.W" IMMIGRATION 
“OLD" IMMIGRATION 


MfcCOUNTPIES OUTSIDE 




I □ □ % 




I □□ 7. 


IOD7. 



IfiflD 


iaan 


ISDD 


ism 


I32D 


CsDURCE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU '\ 

^ CENSUS OF POPULATION -S 


.FEBRUARY, 1924 


41 
















































come a time when the natural resources of our country will 
have so dwindled by exhaustion, even in the face of prudent 
conservation and the development of adequate substitutes; that 
the available supply of the country’s resources per capita of the 
resident population will be so small as to endanger the main- 
tenanace of a fair standard of living. The thought forces itself 
upon us, therefore, whether for her justified protection the 
United States will not, progressively but very gradually, have 
to restrict immigration as the saturation point of immigrant 
absorption is approached and the available supply of the coun¬ 
try’s resources, per capita of population, diminishes; and 
whether in time the United States will be obliged to change its 
character and turn from an immigrant into an emigrant nation. 
This crucial period will naturally be projected farther into the 
future as new inventions and improvements are made, proc¬ 
esses of production and distribution become more efficient, 
and additional material resources are discovered. But while the 
exceptional richness of the United States in material resources 
and her present relationship to European countries might at 
present justify a rather liberal attitude in respect to immigra¬ 
tion, the time may and will come when as a matter of self- 
preservation the United States must be reserved essentially for 
the benefit of her own residents—America for Americans—and 
will even have to direct a surplus population into other countries, 
there to find new opportunities for an adequate livelihood. 

Whatever change or new immigration legislation may now 
or in the future become necessary, should be enacted, therefore, 
in harmony with a broadly conceived, scientifically and prac¬ 
tically justified program, even though expediency may at 
times dictate some deviation from it. 

As for the present, the immigration problem is a challenge 
to all of us to safeguard properly our social and political life 
and institutions and enhance their value, to protect adequately 
our economic needs and growth, and to move with sure-footed 
step, based on requisite knowledge of pertinent facts and 
their broad understanding, toward a definite goal. That goal 
can only be set after clear determination of what are the out¬ 
standing features of our American culture, what path of destiny 
we are qualified and do desire to travel, what special and vital 
contribution to civilized progress we are capable of making 
and ought to make. 


42 


When once the ultimate focus is established toward which to 
shape our national life and policies, we shall be the more able to 
examine, understand and properly relate the nationally vital 
problem of immigration. We shall then be prepared to answer 
with more scientific definiteness what culture complexes and 
cultural qualifications in foreign nationalities, if admitted into 
the United States, would best blend into our national life and 
destiny. We shall have established our policy of action and 
shall be the more able to act with safety and intelligence in 
respect to immigration and other national problems with a 
sociological background. 

Thus, if we view the immigration problem in the large and with 
a single mind toward the best interests of our nation as a member 
of the family of nations, we are plainly led to these conclusions: 

Immigration is not a sociological, an economic, a political or 
a racial question alone. It is a combination of all of these 
placed before the searchlight of inquiry and subjected to the 
acid test of sound thought and deduction. Above all, it is a 
problem of the possibilities in mixing Old World and New 
World racial, cultural and environmental characteristics. It is, 
in short, a problem of what America shall be, of the part that 
we—our industries, our institutions, our culture, our people— 
shall play in world history and progress. In order that we may 
adopt a broad and adequate national policy in respect to immi¬ 
gration and express its essential elements in appropriate legis¬ 
lation that will alike promote our social and economic develop¬ 
ment, we must endeavor to grasp this complex problem as a 
.whole and to approach it in a scientific spirit and equipped with 
the essential scientific facts. 

Chairman Fish: We do not always realize the importance 
of pure science to our modern social conditions. For example, 
medicine has been revolutionized in the last fifty years, largely 
by the efforts of pure scientists. The part that pure science has 
played in the extraordinary development of our industries in 
the last fifty or seventy-five years can hardly be exaggerated. 
I personally feel that in this matter that we are considering to¬ 
day, that of immigration, we must appeal for help to pure scien¬ 
tists in the strongest possible terms, for they can help us enor¬ 
mously. There is hardly a science that cannot be brought to 
aid us in dealing with these questions. Take the scientific study 

43 


of history, as showing from experience the actions and reactions 
of men under certain conditions, many of which are parallel to 
those that now exist. The psychology of the American people 
as compared with the psychology of those who are coming into 
this country is also a matter of prime importance. The geo¬ 
logical and physical features of our country should be correlated 
with the capacities of those whom we are introducing into this 
country as citizens, in order that we may find out exactly the 
correlation between the two. 

I want to refer particularly to two of the more recent sciences 
which seem to me most promising as sources of assistance in this 
matter—anthropology and biology. If the anthropologists and 
biologists can realize the importance of this problem and can be 
brought to the point where they will approach it not only with 
the strong, intelligent investigation that they give to pure 
scientific problems, but with that recognition of the practical 
importance of their work in that regard, I believe that it will be 
most helpful to us in the solution of the matters which we are 
considering. Professor Osborn of the American Museum of 
Natural History is one of the leading American scientists who 
have given long consideration to the immigration problem from 
this point of view, and we are fortunate in being able to have 
him discuss for this conference “The Approach to the Immigra¬ 
tion Problem Through Science.” 

“The Approach to the Immigration Problem Through Science,” by Professor 
Henry Fairfield Osborn , President of the American Museum 
of Natural History , New York. 

Professor Osborn: My subject, “The Approach to the 
Immigration Problem Through Science,” might be restated 
in these words: “Scio” means “to know,” and I would ex¬ 
press it so that it might be more clearly understood as the 
approach to the immigration problem through a wider actual 
knowledge of our own national characteristics and of the charac¬ 
teristics of the various peoples of the various parts of the earth 
who desire to come to our shores. 

I especially disavow the notion that science is cold-blooded; 
it is full of sentiment, but of sentiment founded upon knowledge 
rather than upon sentimentality. I also desire to have it made 
very clear from what I am about to say about peoples of other 
races that I am not to be put down as “pro” or “anti” to any of 
these races, because I endeavor to maintain a fair and impartial 

44 


scientific attitude, to weigh merits and demerits without par¬ 
tiality, and, particularly when it comes to admitting other races 
to our country, dispassionately to consider whether their racial 
character entitles them or qualifies them to fit into our peculiar 
kind of civilization. 

As a trained observer, an observer at first hand, with knowl¬ 
edge obtained from personal contact with the peoples all over 
the world, I have been gathering information during the past 
forty or fifty years of my scientific life. I have seen France, 
Germany, England, Spain, Scandinavia—all of these countries 
—not only as they are today, but as I have followed their 
civilization for the past fifty years. I remember France exactly 
as it was in the Empire of Napoleon III. I remember Ger¬ 
many as it was in 1879 before the period of German expansion. 
I have seen Germany as she is today, and I think I am in a 
position to form impartial judgments on these great nations of 
the West. I have recently come into personal contact with 
some of the leaders of thought in these countries, conscientious, 
patriotic, high-minded men, who have told me the truth about 
their countries, and how they themselves feel on this question 
of emigration to America. 

My experience and attitude are the same in China and Japan. 
I have tried not only to observe the people but to talk with the 
most fair-minded and intelligent Japanese and Chinese, and 
coming from a great home institution, the American Museum 
of Natural History, I have been in a position where they were 
disposed to speak very frankly about their own people, about 
the difficulties they are laboring under, and about their future 
program. For example, I learned from the most intelligent 
Chinese whom I met, the Director of the Geological Survey of 
China, that he is seriously concerned about the future of his 
people, because he feels that their character is gradually chang¬ 
ing, that they are losing some of their ancient virtues. This he 
attributes partly to the fact that for centuries they have had a 
wrong system of birth selection. Marriages in China are ar¬ 
ranged between boys and girls. Promising young men in China 
have wives thrust upon them who may be utterly unfitted to be 
their partners in life or to bear their children. That is only one 
instance. This distinguished Chinaman spoke to me very 
frankly and I obtained from him inside information of great 
value on this eugenic problem in China. 

45 


After long previous experience and observation in California 
and in the Hawaiian Islands, I had recently a very wonderful 
revelation of Japanese character. I had the good fortune it 
might have been the ill fortune—to be in Japan during the earth¬ 
quake. I saw how the Japanese, with the revelation of character 
and mind during a great disaster, faced that terrible crisis. I 
observed that they faced’t in a manner entirely different from 
that in which we should have faced it. I will not criticize it, 
but I will say that it was entirely different, and that brought 
home to me the first point which I desire to make very clear, 
and that is, that there is an intimate connection between national 
character and civilization. The Japanese, the Chinese, the 
British, the German, the French, the Italian—whatever you will 
—civilizations have grown up as expressions of their national 
character, and in many of these countries, if not in all, they 
recognize that their national character or destiny is threatened 
by loss of the best elements in their race. 

This is also true, I may say with confidence, as a bit of inside 
information, in England, in Scandinavia, in France, in Germany. 
I do not believe it is true in Italy; I believe it is not true in 
Spain. I think that one reason why Italy has undergone a 
relatively peaceful and wonderful revolution, is because her 
national character is unimpaired. She has not suffered the ter¬ 
rible loss of the finest elements of her population such as France 
has suffered through war, Germany through war and the re¬ 
placement of the original stock by another kind of Germans, 
Great Britain through war and also through racial replacement, 
Scandinavia through the depletion of the best elements of her 
population by emigration to America. In the opinion of the 
most patriotic Scandinavians, American emigration has taken 
one-half of the best blood of Scandinavia and transferred it to 
our shores, to enrich our civilization. Both Norway and 
Sweden—I speak officially—are seriously alarmed about this 
depletion of their best stock, especially Norway; both countries 
are making an effort to keep the better class of their people 
at home, because they feel that they are being bled to death. 
To quote an extreme remark made to me, Norway has been so 
far depleted that “it is better for a Norwegian of poor circum¬ 
stances to be born a dependent and to be taken care of by the 
state than it is to be born independent to be taxed to take care 
of the dependents.” This is a surprising but nevertheless a 

46 


strong statement, relating to a country in which subsistence is 
already very difficult, because the care of dependents in Norway 
has become a terrible burden. 

Therefore, if we Americans desire to take a broad scientific 
view of immigration, we must weigh each country, we must 
study the character of each country, we must see that the con¬ 
ditions of its population and what remains of its supply of people 
are of such character that we want them in our civilization. We 
know that several of these countries have for years past been 
quietly guiding the dependent class to our shores and trying to 
retain the independent class. I have positive knowledge that 
for the last two years one of the European countries has been 
offering the greatest inducements to the best of its people who 
had migrated to America to return to that country; shipload 
after shipload of superior men of that nation have gone back, and 
the ships have returned full of undesirables. This country, I 
believe, is more intelligent in this matter than we are, or than 
we have been up to the present time, when our government is 
taking account of these facts—not of prejudices nor of opinions, 
but of cold facts. I am glad to say that within the last two years 
our government, our President, our Commissioner of Immigra 
tion, our Commissioner of Labor, Mr. Davis, have been taking 
the greatest pains to inform themselves thoroughly as to the 
very class of facts which I have briefly presented to you. 

I feel, as I am sure you all feel, that our first duty is to our own 
country, to our own civilization. Consequently, we should be 
guided in our immigration laws and activities to see that no 
elements are allowed to enter here which would threaten our 
civilization should they become preponderant in any part of the 
country. This is said in no disrespect to any other civilization. 

For example, I am a great admirer of the Japanese civilization. 
This people has many qualities which, God knows, we lack. 
They love beauty; they love nature; they are deeply interested 
in education; the women love their families and their children; 
they are industrious; they have many fine domestic qualities 
which some of our people lack; they are intensely patriotic, a 
quality we do not lack. The Chinese also are a wonderful people. 
Their ancient civilization is marvelous; their knowledge of agri¬ 
culture and of many of the arts and refinements of life dates 
back thousands of years; they are industrious and theirs is 
industry such as the world has never before known, because 

47 


China is crowded to the very limit, every little plot of land being 
under cultivation. China is spilling over into Mongolia in order 
to find land for her great agricultural population. One of the 
most interesting experiences of my recent journey was to pass 
from China, densely populated—populated and under cultiva¬ 
tion to the last mountain top and the last cranny in the rock— 
to the most superb stretch of agricultural country in the world, 
a great, broad stretch in southern Mongolia, which the Chinese 
agriculturists are now entering by means of peaceful conquest. 

But the oriental civilization, the oriental soul, is fundamen¬ 
tally different from the American. I won't say it is better or 
worse; I only say it is different. And while we welcome in¬ 
dividual Japanese, some of whom greatly enrich our life, I be¬ 
lieve that the Japanese as colonists and groups such as are found 
in Hawaii cannot become Americanized. They desire to main¬ 
tain their own civilization, while we at best desire to throw all 
the light of our civilization we can to them. 

I think one of the most superb things in American history was 
the outpouring of American money to Japan, an action that 
touched, for the first time, the whole heart of Japan. And when 
the ten million dollars arrived—sums were voted in other coun¬ 
tries but never paid—when our ships arrived loaded with every¬ 
thing needed in the hour of dire extremity, it was a most striking 
revelation of Japanese character. Do you know that the Jap¬ 
anese could not understand our motives ? They were so thor¬ 
oughly imbued with the idea that we were their enemies that 
their first thought was that we had an ulterior motive. This I 
learned directly from American army and navy officers. The 
Japanese thought we were coming to take military and naval 
advantage of their distress. This indicates a difference in na¬ 
tional character, a difference which also separates the Japanese 
from the Chinese. It took the greatest tact on the part of our 
naval and army officers and of our splendid national representa¬ 
tive in Japan to overcome this deep-seated suspicion on the part 
of the Japanese officials and people. 

The same is true in China. It is very difficult for the Chinese 
to understand us. I think it would be impossible to make either 
of these people as a whole to take our point of view, and it is 
undesirable that we should. The Chinese assimilate our civiliza¬ 
tion more readily than do the Japanese, largely because the 
former have a purely local patriotism rather than national, 

48 


whereas the Japanese are nationally patriotic. The Chinaman 
loves his home; he loves the soil; but national patriotism in the 
American sense is something he knows naught of, for it has 
never been developed in him. 

The first half of my address, therefore, accents the differences 
in fundamental and racial characteristics and brings out, I hope 
without prejudice, the idea that through no fault of their own, 
certain races of peoples are not predisposed by heredity to adopt 
American ideals and conditions of life. They may have ideals 
that are better, but they are not ours, and no power, no laws, 
no environment or education can make them the same. For 
example, Japanese brought up in our schools in the island of 
Hawaii enjoy exactly the same advantages as do other races; 
they go to the same schools. You see these charming little 
Japanese children eager for knowledge, yet they all go to a 
Japanese school in the afternoon and to Japanese Sunday schools 
—they have Japanese Buddhist priests who form their Sunday 
schools. They are taught a dual allegiance to Japan and to 
America. Why ? Because the Japanese want to retain their 
love of country, their patriotism to Japan. It is a splendid 
quality, but it unfits them for adaptation to our American 
civilization, whereas the Chinese under exactly the same en¬ 
vironment, lacking a sense of national patriotism, fit relatively 
well into our civilization. 

Passing to the more practical application of our scientific 
knowledge, we will see what science has to say about these very 
questions. As I have already said, it is very gratifying to know, 
as is well known to your Director, Mr. Alexander, that the 
American Government is studying the immigration question 
now and desiring the fullest light of scientific information. Two 
events in this country have been a revelation to our Congress 
and our Houses of Legislature. The first was the army in¬ 
telligence tests. I believe those tests were worth what the war 
cost, even of human life, if they serve to show clearly to our 
people the lack of intelligence in our own country, and the de¬ 
grees of intelligence in different races who are coming to us, in a 
way which no one can say is the result of prejudice. It wasn’t 
because one comes from a line of abolitionist ancestors or from 
a line of men who believed in slavery that he realized that the 
negro’s intelligence is not to be placed on the same line as that 
of the white man. Not that the negro has not many fine quali- 

49 


ties of character, of fidelity, of truthfulness, of love of soil and 
of industry, which may be capitalized in our civilization; but we 
learned once for all that the negro is not like us. So in regard 
to many races and sub-races in Europe we learned that some 
which we had believed possessed of an order of intelligence per¬ 
haps superior to our own were far inferior; they did not rank as 
high. We had some great surprises even in the little island of 
Great Britain. We found that the men who come to us from 
England, from Scotland and from Ireland were different in 
respect to intelligence, as we have long known them to differ in 
the power of self-government. 

Intelligence tests were just the opening wedge. Then came 
the Second International Congress of Eugenics organized, in 
1921, on a scale where all countries were represented—North 
America, South America, Europe—for we sent invitations to 
every country in the world and nearly all that were able to do so 
responded. The Congress brought together, for the first time, 
all the information relating to the laws of heredity; all the infor¬ 
mation relating to the advantages and disadvantages of the 
wonderful law of heredity; all the information relating to what 
characteristics are transmitted from parents to offspring and 
what are not; the dangers of the misuse of inheritance in en¬ 
couraging the multiplication of undesirable stocks and the 
advantages of the use of inheritance in encouraging multiplica¬ 
tion of desirable stocks. Second, there were assembled 
unmistakable figures, for the first time, showing that in many 
sections of our country, for various reasons which I cannot enter 
into, the best American stock is rapidly dying out. We may say, 
from the scientific standpoint, that it is threatened with ex¬ 
tinction, because when a certain stock begins to die out, that is 
the beginning of its extinction. That is one thing the chairman 
alluded to which we may learn from the dinosaurs; if dinosaurs 
take a wrong direction they become extinct—something else 
comes in and takes their place. We learned at that International 
Eugenics Congress that in certain parts of our country, thank 
God not in all parts, the people who made this country are in 
danger of extinction. We learned that our two greatest univer¬ 
sities, Harvard and Yale, if they depend on the sons of their own 
graduates, will in time have empty halls because their own 
graduates are not multiplying rapidly enough to keep those 
halls filled. 


50 


Third, the Eugenics Congress spread abroad what may be 
called a constructive eugenic program. This eugenic program 
dates from the period of Francis Gal ton, who first proposed the 
word “eugenics.” Like all great reformers, the idea started 
more or less in his own mind and has taken forty years to filter 
gradually down into the popular mind, until now I think every 
one understands in a general way what the principles of eugenics 
are, how desirable, how patriotic they are, and how the more 
widely spread the knowledge of eugenics properly understood is, 
the better for every people—for the American, for the Scandi¬ 
navian, for the French, for the German, and even, as I have said, 
for the Chinese. 

For America eugenics rests both on birth selection and upon 
immigrant selection. I like the term “birth selection” much 
better than the word used, “birth control,” because no one can 
differ about the desirability of birth selection. Every one agrees 
that it is a crime to bring into the world knowingly a criminal, 
an idiot, or a hopelessly diseased person, and every one agrees 
that it is undesirable to increase in this or any other country, 
the number of this class, namely, of unintelligent and depend¬ 
ent people. We don’t have to argue about that, because every 
one agrees. This is part, and an important part, of the eugenic 
program which bears directly upon the immigration program. 

If we favor birth selection we must favor immigrant selection, 
namely, the kind of parents we bring into this country. This 
double safeguard of our institutions is what we are coming to in 
the United States. I cannot tell you with what satisfaction I 
saw the idea growing in the mind of Commissioner Davis and 
the courage—because it requires courage—with which he is 
pursuing it and the intelligent purpose with which we went 
abroad to study this question at first hand. I had the privilege 
of seeing the enlightened letter he wrote to the late President 
Harding, which has not been published, in which he showed that 
he thoroughly understood the whole immigration problem from 
the patriotic and scientific points of view. He showed that he 
connected it right up with patriotism, with love of country, 
with our sentiments, and that he plans, as far as he is able, to 
substitute a true sentiment, based upon unprejudiced knowl¬ 
edge, for a false sentimentality. 

Some may say selective immigration is too costly. I would 
like to have an economist figure this out. It was estimated by 

51 


France many years ago that each man was worth $3,000 to the 
Republic. I have no doubt that we could figure out what each 
immigrant, able-bodied, sound, intelligent and industrious, 
would be worth to our Republic and that it would be a larger 
sum than $3,000, probably. My own belief is that it is economy 
of the utmost importance to us. But what, on the other hand, 
do the dependents cost us ? Not less than a thousand dollars a 
year per head, in round numbers, in such a benevolent state as 
New York. Instead of bringing something to us, they take 
something from our people which we might better spend in popu¬ 
lar education. Governor Smith has just put over a program for 
fifty million dollars for new insane asylums. I suppose we shall 
have to build those insane asylums. But let us calculate the 
cost. One-third of the people in the insane asylums are insane 
immigrants or children of insane immigrants, people who had 
insanity in the family. The interest on these new insane 
asylums, in addition to the old insane asylums, will cost New 
York State alone $2,500,000 besides the care of the new insane, 
which I suppose can be calculated at not less than $400 per 
capita annually. I am sure the economic balance sheet would 
in a short time present an unanswerable argument in favor of 
selective immigration. 

I believe that it will be possible for America to carry out a 
selective immigration program by means which will dispel one 
of the difficulties in our present system, namely, that we are 
all racially biased. I am a Nordic—I come from northern 
Europe. I am perhaps biased, though I try not to be, in favor 
of the northern peoples. I think Americans generally are rather 
inclined to be biased in favor of the northern races, and there is 
a great clamor now to let more of the northern races in and to 
restrict the southern races, especially some of the Italian and 
the Balkan peoples. Now to my mind this is a mistake, an error 
which will be corrected through selective immigration. We may 
be able to do two things. First, we may be able, by local ex¬ 
amination, to study not only the individual that is coming over 
here, but his family. We may prevent ourselves from admitting 
an individual who looks apparently sound, strong, capable, but 
who belongs to a family with insanity in it, which, according to 
the laws of heredity, indicates that his children may be insane 
or be dependent. That is one thing; we shall be able to select 
individuals from sound, healthy and promising families. 

52 


Second, this examination, while costly at first, will break 
down barriers of racial prejudice, if such exist among us, be¬ 
tween the different peoples of Europe. I myself believe, for 
example, that we can find in various parts of Italy—I have 
traveled through all parts of Italy, north, south, Sicily, and know 
the Italians pretty well—as fine elements for future America as 
in any country in Europe. I believe also in the Balkans we shall 
find fine elements for our development, and in general I think 
through the principle of selective immigration it will repay our 
government richly to send out numbers of men—not one man, 
but numbers of men and women (because women can do splen¬ 
did work)—as advance agents in this inquiry, so as to sift out 
on the other side the people who are coming to America and 
not bring them over here and subject them to the hard, distress¬ 
ing experience of being sent back. 

Consequently, as my last word, I desire to be quoted as 
strongly favoring the principle of intelligent race selection in 
this country and, secondly, as strongly favoring the principle of 
selective immigration abroad. I consider that these two prin¬ 
ciples are sound not only from the sentimental and patriotic 
standpoints but from the practical, economic and scientific 
standpoints. 

Chairman Fish: We now come to the definite program of 
the Conference. There are four major propositions that are to 
be taken up and considered from the floor in ten-minute ad¬ 
dresses. The first is: “ Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained 
without change by extending the period of its operation beyond 
June jo, 1924 ; or shall it be amended in respect to its administra¬ 
tive features?” The second is: “ Shall the Per Centum Limit Act 
be retained , with amendments in respect to percentage restriction 
features?” That will be taken up this evening. The third is: 
“Shall special legislation be enacted to secure better selection , dis¬ 
tribution and assimilation of alien immigrants?” That will come 
tomorrow morning. The fourth is the broad suggestion: “Shall 
a competent commission with broad powers of investigation be 
appointed by the President under Congressional resolution to 
inquire into the major factors in the immigration problem and 
report thereon?” 


53 


Mr. Charles Cheney, of Cheney Bros., South Manchester, Conn., repre¬ 
senting the Silk Association of America, opened the general discussion. 

Mr. Charles Cheney: What I have to say is rather of an 
underlying nature, touching on the nature of the approach to 
the problem. 

Doubtless many of you have heard that the attitude of in¬ 
dustrialists toward this problem is one of extreme selfishness, 
that our aim is to get a plentiful supply of what we call cheap 
labor, so that we can grind out the greatest possible quantities 
of pig iron, cotton, silk and boots and shoes, at the lowest price 
and make the most money, without being much concerned about 
the result to the nation or the economic, social or political as¬ 
pects of the matter. 

That is part of a doctrine which is being preached broadly in 
regard to the attitude of industrialists generally, not only with 
respect to immigration but in regard to their whole problem of 
personnel, to their labor problem. I would not feel justified in 
taking up your time here if it were not in the hopes that I might 
say one word at the very start of this discussion to get that at¬ 
mosphere cleared up. 

I cannot assume to speak for industrialists, but I do know a 
great many industrialists. I have occasion to have many con¬ 
ferences, talks, discussions with them. I share in the work of 
this Conference Board in its contact with industry all through 
the country, and while I have no authority to represent industry 
here, I feel that I understand something of industry’s attitude, 
and that is what I want to give you. 

I have a conception of industry fundamentally different from 
the sausage machine conception. I believe that nobody realizes 
better than the industrialists the need of quality as against 
quantity in their personnel. It is the curse of our lives that we 
have to deal with a shifting, inefficient, restless, unstable labor 
element. Quality, dependability, character are the very essence 
of success to any well-managed, well-conducted industry. 

I believe that the greatest influence there is today in America, 
looking toward the welfare of the working men, is the industrial 
leaders of this country. I believe they have at heart—because 
it affects not only their surroundings, but their own personal 
business gain—the welfare, the character, the prosperity, the 
satisfied state of mind, the intelligence, the integrity, of those 

54 


who work with them. That is our chief and first concern. 
Quantity is an entirely secondary matter. 

Now we were told by a great many people a year ago, when 
this question began to be very acute, that our industries were 
going to be crippled, unless we let in a lot of new labor. Some 
doubted it. I think most of the far-seeing industrialists didn't 
believe it, and I think that the history of this past year has 
proven to everybody that a policy adopted at that time, of an 
indiscriminate letting down of the bars to all who chose to come, 
would have been a colossal mistake, and our industries would 
have suffered. 

It is true that we hear in this locality, or in that locality, or 
in one industry or another, that there is what is called a shortage 
of labor. But look at the final results. By what should we judge 
the need of labor ? Obviously by output. Well, we have given 
the world the biggest output of manufactured products that we 
have ever had in the history of the world, in the history of this 
country—and that means the history of the world in that con¬ 
nection. We have exceeded the productive capacity of the war 
peak. It doesn’t look to me as if we had suffered from a shortage 
of labor. I maintain that those who demand that industry be 
given an unlimited supply of labor have upon them the burden of 
proof to show why they need it. If they want more labor, I 
think they have to go farther in their proof than to simply show 
the need of labor. They must show that they have to get it 
outside. 

I haven’t heard much talk about this question of getting our 
needed labor at home. We have an enormous reservoir of labor 
—what we might call internal immigration. Mr. Alexander has 
just pointed out to us that over a period of years we have im¬ 
ported into this country a total of something like 800,000 immi¬ 
grants per annum, and roughly speaking, out of that 800,000 
immigrants, something like one-half have gone into productive 
industry. 

In other words, we have added, let us say 5% to our labor 
productiveness. I maintain that it would be an easy job to 
increase our labor productiveness 25% or 30% by having our 
people do a reasonable amount of work. We are suffering from 
a false philosophy, and there is no worse disease than a false 
philosophy. It was a false philosophy that brought about the 
great World War, and it is a false philosophy that is being 

55 


taught our people, that they can promote their own welfare by 
doing less work. We got into the habit of saying: “Let-George 
do it,” and now we are turning around and saying: “Let Gio¬ 
vanni do it.” We can do it ourselves, and if we don’t do it 
ourselves, we will break down in our virility, in our moral and 
physical stamina, and we will become a bunch of parasites letting 
these other people, whom we pretend to look down upon, do our 
work for us. 

Now, you might think I am talking against immigration. 
Nothing of the kind! My spirit says: “Open the doors to all 
those who wish to come.” My common sense says: “No, let’s 
have selective immigration, and let’s have it in such quantities 
as we need and can properly assimilate.” 

Mr. A. J. Derbyshire , Director of the Americanization Council of Utica , 
New York , officially representing the Citizens’ Bureau. 

Mr. A. J. Derbyshire: I bring to this Conference the 
greetings and the good wishes of the Americanization Council 
of Utica, New York, a council composed of the elected repre¬ 
sentatives of about one hundred social and fraternal and political 
organizations of the city, a city that has about 110,000 people 
in it and in which sixty-six out of each one hundred are living in 
a foreign home. We feel that the problem of the immigrant is 
our problem in Utica. We feel that this problem is not a prob¬ 
lem of immigration, but the problem of the immigrant, and I 
take it that while we have the word “administrative” on this 
particular part of the program, what we really are dealing with 
in this particular phase of the problem is the morale of the im¬ 
migrants in our neighborhoods and in our cities. I would like 
to speak first, then, upon topics “a” and “g”. 

I believe very thoroughly, and my Board instructs me to say, 
that the Americanization Council is in thorough sympathy with 
the control of quotas and the selection and examination of im¬ 
migrants not at Ellis Island, but across the seas at ports of 
embarkation. 

I wanted to know a little bit of what it was to be an immigrant, 
so this last summer I spent twenty days in the steerage, going to 
Italy and coming back. I had my hair cropped off. I took 
six hours one Saturday afternoon to get a physical examination 
in the dirtiest quarter of Naples. I went into a dirty barber 
shop and had a dirty rag put around my neck and all my hair 

56 


clipped off to be made clean enough to come to America, and 
every one of the sixteen hundred that were on board of that 
boat coming to American went through the same thing, pro¬ 
vided they were in the third class. 

If you had enough money to buy a first-class ticket or a 
second-class ticket, you didn’t have to have your hair cropped 
off, you didn’t have to go through all these examinations, you 
didn’t have to stay in the building at the dock F at Naples from 
half-past nine in the morning until half-past seven at night, 
without a place to sit down, and absolutely no consideration 
whatever. 

So I say that it is time for us to take this problem out of the 
hands of the steamship companies and governments and let 
American officials say what shall be done and how it shall be 
done humanely. 

Therefore, we want to suggest that changes made in this law 
shall be that Ellis Island shall be done away with, and that it 
shall simply be a port through which immigrants pass; but that 
no immigrant shall step aboard a ship to come to America unless 
it is very definitely determined that when he gets here, he comes 
in and is qualified to come in. 

The second point I want to speak on is “c.” We men that are 
down in the field are concerned with the morale of the immi¬ 
grant in our foreign neighborhood. I imagine that is what my 
job is—to see that the morale of these men and women is kept 
high; and I want to ask you how you can keep the morale of 
these men and women high if you keep their families split in two ? 
I don’t think it needs any discussion at all, that the wife and 
children of an immigrant shall be allowed to come outside of 
quotas. To go a step further, I want to say for the consideration 
of this Conference that it seems to our Board that the thing that 
we ought to do is what Mr. Johnson put in the bill that was 
printed but wasn’t acted upon in Congress last year. That is 
to say that the immediate relatives, the wife and children, the 
mother and father, the minor brothers and disters, the widowed 
sisters, and fiancees of, first, an American citizen, and, second, 
of a man who has been in America six months and has first 
citizenship papers in his possession, be allowed to come to 
America whenever he wants to send for them, and the quicker 
they get here the better. We feel that it is impossible to main¬ 
tain the morale of young men who come here, with their wives 

57 


and children and their mothers and fathers on the other side of 
the sea. 

When I came back from Italy this fall, I ran into a young 
Greek who not only served in the American Army, but was 
decorated for bravery in action in France. For one year we 
have tried to bring his mother and father from Greece, and it 
has been impossible to get them here, even though he is an 
American citizen. 

When I met him on the street, he said to me: “I am going to 
Canada.” “What are you going to Canada for ?” “Well, if I 
go up there I can get my mother and father here. To hell with 
America.” “O,” I said, “Demetrius, don’t say that, don’t say 
it.” That is what hurts. I knew that, down deep in the heart, 
that young Greek who gave his all when America called for it was 
glad to give it, and yet his mother and father in Greece, in 
dire circumstances, are not able to come here where he can take 
care of them. That young fellow has sold out his business in 
Utica and has gone to Canada. 

We maintain that we cannot keep morale in our neighbor¬ 
hoods, in our cities, unless we can take outside of all quotas and 
all counts the immediate relatives of, first, American citizens, 
and, second, men who have been in America, say, about six 
months, and who have in their possession a first paper. 

Miss Jenny W. Hess , Director of Immigrant Education , representing the 
Department of Education, Binghamton , New York. 

Miss Jenny W. Hess: The point that I wanted to bring out 
especially this morning has already been touched upon by Mr. 
Derbyshire. In my work in Binghamton, which is directing 
the immigrant education work, we get very close to the foreign- 
born men and women. They come to us with their confidences 
and they tell us much that otherwise we might not even suspect. 
Only last night before I took the train to come here, I called on 
an Italian family, the head of which is a full-fledged citizen of 
the United States, who this last year went home to visit in 
Italy and who married there. His passport expired in August; 
he had to return to America. His wife was not allowed to come 
back with him, the monthly quota being filled. He has made 
effort upon effort to get his wife here. He is most anxious that 
she should come, particularly inasmuch as there is a young child 
expected there. That man has had all kinds of mental anxiety 
that I feel has been most unnecessary, 

58 


I am sure that the framers of the quota law which, coupled 
with the Cable Act, has made this difficulty, never anticipated 
anything of this kind. I would ask that consideration be given 
the wives of naturalized citizens. They ought to be admitted 
without question of quota. It seems to me that that is the 
first consideration. 

Mr. C. E. Bennett , Director of Adult Education , Schenectady , New York , 
representing the Board of Education. 

Mr. C. E. Bennett: What I have to say is really nothing 
new, but still I want to add my word of protest to the law as it 
stands today, and perhaps I can tell you what I want to tell you 
better by giving one very brief illustration. 

Something like two years ago, we had a man in our schools 
who was very anxious to prepare himself for citizenship. I found 
out he was exceptionally anxious, a little more anxious than the 
other people. He was very anxious to take the test with the 
Department of Labor, so as to get the certificate, and be sure 
to get by the judge. 

I talked with him a little bit and I found that he wanted to 
become an American citizen in order to get his wife here from 
Italy. We had a little vicious circle at that time—a man 
couldn’t get his wife here until he was a citizen, and he couldn’t 
become a citizen in most of the courts until he got his wife here. 
And there the poor man was in this country trying to get his 
wife here and trying to become a citizen. 

He was turned down at this court, not because he didn’t know 
English but because his wife wasn’t here. He was turned down 
in the next court, and the third judge finally let him in. That 
was over a year ago. 

I ran across that man only this week and I asked him if his 
wife was here and he said that he hadn’t been able to get her 
here because of the quota. He was going to get her here as soon 
as possible. 

I have known that man for over two years and he is still try¬ 
ing to get his wife here from Italy. I think that any of us would 
be very much stirred if we were under the same circumstances. 
So I want to suggest, as Miss Hess did, that the law should not 
exclude the wife of citizens here. I think that an American 
citizen should be able to get his wife into this country. 


59 


Mr. Francis D. Bartolo of Buffalo , New York, representing the Italian- 
American Business Mens Association. 

Mr. Francis D. Bartolo: I want to say first words of 
praise and commendation for the remarks made by Professor 
Osborn. I shall endeavor to reproduce the substance of those 
remarks before the Association that sends me here. I am es¬ 
pecially in accord with him, and I believe I voice the feelings of 
the people who sent me here in regard, first, to the fact that the 
real concern of the conference should not be the partisan, pe¬ 
culiar problems of the day, as they relate to labor or capital or 
certain nations, but the highest interests of the country for a 
long time to come. Then I am in accord with him in reference 
to the view that immigration should not be treated merely from 
the standpoint of quantity, but especially from that of quality. 
I have especially in mind what he said in regard to the adapta¬ 
tion of the Italians to American civilization. 

It is not so much a problem with the acquired citizen as to 
how he should become an American; it is to a large extent also 
a problem with the native American. Many of them are so 
arrogant, not seeming to realize that this process of Americaniza¬ 
tion is not to be confined to immigrants, but that the latter 
should be in every way assisted with sympathy and cooperation 
by the native Americans. 

A few years ago, I was a listener in the Italian Chamber of 
Deputies, and I heard some politicians of note say this, in sub¬ 
stance: “Emigration is for us a very important question. It is 
especially important because the less desirable find their way 
out. It is better for us.” Seemingly they had no concern as to 
what the result might be to the country to which these people 
migrated. I have heard lawyers of note say in Rome that since 
migration from certain parts of the peninsula and of the island 
became large, there were less infractions of penal code. That 
may be so. 

So, as an American citizen, without hyphen, I am here to 
assert that our concern in this conference is not the interests of 
the countries or the governments of the countries from which 
most of the immigrants come, but first and last, the highest, the 
truest interests of this country. My conclusion is this: The 
quota system does not seem to be the best medicine for this 
disease. It is arbitrary. It is purely quantitative. I would 
advocate a selective system which, through the process of 

60 


elimination, will bring the immigrants to the needed or the 
desired number only, and give to this country the class of people 
in the industries, and of the quality physically and otherwise 
which are desired and needed. This selective system should be 
operated not in this country, but abroad, where the people come 
from. As some one said a while ago, it should not be the mo¬ 
nopoly of the steamship companies who are animated only by 
one desire, but should be the concern of true representatives of 
this country. 

In this our government should cooperate with the govern¬ 
ments of other countries, so that Italy, or France, or England, 
or Russia should not send here the people they want to get rid 
of, but should send the people that are wanted here. There 
should be a total elimination of the inhuman experiences of many 
people who came here in good faith and are sent back. 

Time and again it has been my privilege to talk by telephone 
from my office with men in the office of the Secretary of State in 
Washington, and on several occasions I even had to go to this 
extent: Where the father had to be sent back and the mother 
was allowed to remain, where the child had to be sent back and 
the mother could remain, where someone was the victim during 
the probationary period of some disease acquired here and not 
imported, and nevertheless had to be sent back—I have had to 
give warning that I feared the agent who was courageous enough 
to tear the father or the mother of the child away from the 
bosom of that family might meet with physical force or injury 
on the part of those people who were wounded so deeply. 

You cannot sever the human from the purely scientific prob¬ 
lem. This selective immigration should replace the system 
which is purely quantitative now, and which does not deal with 
the problem of the immigrant as an individual but deals with 
peoples who, unfortunately, are in the period of transition. 

Mr. Harvey M. Anderson , Secretary , Y. M. C. A. 
of New York City. 

Mr. Harvey M. Anderson: I am led, before speaking to 
the subject, just to make a remark from my experience in dealing 
with immigrants since the quota law went into effect. I am not 
surprised that our insane asylums are filled with immigrants and 
children of immigrants, because the suffering and uncertainty 

61 


that our immigrants who have been admitted have had to live 
through would drive almost anyone to the insane asylum. 

Regarding point “c”: I have in mind a young Scotchman. 
He came in as an immigrant credited to the quota. He couldn’t 
bring his wife along when he came, but finally he applied for a 
vise for her to come as a visitor, a tourist for six months. Un¬ 
fortunately, the consul on the other side, in viseing the passport, 
instead of making it for tourists, made it for permanent immi¬ 
gration; so she arrived at Ellis Island, and the torment that she 
went through in getting finally admitted as a tourist almost led 
to another addition to the insane asylum. It seems that this 
law must be changed so that cases of this sort could be admitted. 

Regarding “d”: I am dealing a great deal with Russians, 
especially with Russian refugees. Having lived in Russia and 
speaking the language, I have received a number of Russians 
arriving here. Fortunately, in many cases, the Department of 
Labor, it seems, has even at times gone beyond its power in an 
attempt to meet the human needs of mankind, and I think we 
are to be congratulated on having men in our Department who, 
in spite of the laws, have made a very earnest effort to overcome 
the difficulties and have admitted such cases. 

I have in mind just now a fine young Russian, twenty-one 
years of age, who arrived here after the quota of his government 
was filled. He was on a steamer. He worked his way over here 
to come to America. He found out he couldn’t get in, and he 
slipped ashore one night from the steamer, and is here illegally, 
committing a crime, as it were, against our government, because 
he couldn’t get in rightly and couldn’t go back to the country 
from which he came. This is another example. There are many 
that we might bring that would be equally strong. 

Regarding the point “e”: “Shall resident aliens leaving the 
country be permitted to come back ?” I had a man in yesterday 
who wanted to go abroad for just a short visit, and he didn’t 
know what to do. He had to go over to meet his parents. This, 
it seems, must be administered in a different way from what it 
has been. 

Then in regard to the last point: Yesterday, a young English¬ 
man was in my office, a fine young chap, one of our Y. M. C. A. 
secretaries formerly in England. He came over here simply to 
spend a vacation. He got here and found out he would like to 

62 


stay. Not knowing just how the quota worked, he wrote to 
Washington and asked if he could stay. He got an answer back 
which happened to be according to the letter of the law, saying: 
“Mister, as soon as your time is up, you eet out. You have got 
to go back to England and go through all this process.” 

I could go on. I happen to be married to a Russian lady. I 
am a perfectly good American, but I can’t bring my mother-in- 
law over now because she happens to be a Russian and the Rus¬ 
sian quota is filled, and I would have to write to the Secretary of 
Labor and get all kinds of special dispensation to be able to get 
her in. I say if we continue this law it must be administered 
differently. 

Adjournment 


63 


II 


THURSDAY AFTERNOON SESSION 
December 13, 1923 

The meeting convened at two o’clock, Mrs. Coffin Van Rensselaer , 

Executive Secretary of the Woman’s Department of the National 
Civic Federation of New York , presiding. 

Chairman Van Rensselaer: Those of us who were here 
this morning heard a very definite and lucid statement of the 
growth and development of the migration of peoples into the 
United States, and the legislation, building up from the state 
control to the national control, to the present quota act which 
has grown out of the increasing fear that this migration of 
peoples may, in the last analysis, affect our governmental 
processes. 

We listened also to an eminent professor of biology who 
brought out a point which I think we must all take to heart in 
this discussion. I resent, for myself personally and for the 
hundreds of people that think as I do on this subject, the ad¬ 
jectives “superior” or “intolerant” in connection with our judg¬ 
ment of the future of the immigration problem. There is no 
question of intolerance; there is no question of superiority; 
there is a distinct question of a difference, and I maintain that 
we as Americans, whether of the old stock or of the new, not only 
have a right but a duty to stand fast that that difference shall 
be held. 

This problem has gone beyond industry; it has gone into the 
race. We can’t all of us be economists. We can’t all of us be 
biologists. Under the law, we are all of us citizens, and we can 
only be citizens in the real meaning of that term if, as we accept 
the benefits which we get from living under a stable government, 
we also face the duties and responsibilities in keeping that 
government intact. 

We can’t do that if we think for today. Our duty is to think 
into the tomorrow of this race. This is a representative republic, 
and it is axiomatic that no government reaches a higher standard 
than the normal level of the intelligence of the majority that 
controls its. Our duty, as we sit here this afternoon is, without 

64 


fear or favor, to think first and foremost of the future of the 
race that at this time we are personally responsible for. That is 
the problem. I hope it is the spirit in which we will discuss it. 

I hope this intolerance and superiority will be forgotten. We 
make no pretense of dictating the government policies or the 
government controls of any people on earth, but we do maintain 
that we have the right to control our own. 

The subject for discussion this afternoon is very definitely 
stated. It is: “Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained without 
change by extending the period of its operation beyond June jo y 
1924.; or shall it be amended in respect to its administrativefeatures?” 

As I take this question, we are not discussing this afternoon 
the change, the possible change of per cent in any quota law, 
nor the possible change of census date in any quota law. That 
discussion, which is of vital importance, is to be held at the 
evening session. 

Dr. G. H. Topakyan, General Secretary of the United Armenian 
Immigration and Welfare Societies of America . 

Dr. Topakyan: All of us who are connected with immigra¬ 
tion or have observed Ellis Island know how dreadful the con¬ 
ditions are which have resulted from the operation of the present 
law. The torture and suffering brought about through that act 
has been terrific. After traveling tens of thousands of miles and 
paying fortunes to get to this port, unfortunate people find that 
for some reason they have to be deported. For that reason I am 
sure that some effort should be made to control the situation on 
the other side, so that when he gets here, the immigrant knows 
he will be admitted. 

We all know the congested condition of Ellis Island. We 
don’t say that the conditions that exist there today are the fault 
of the officers in charge of Ellis Island, but certainly something 
should be done to remedy them. 

I am sure you have all heard of unfortunate fathers and 
mothers and children coming to New York. The poor immi¬ 
grant thinks, when he sees the Statue of Liberty, that all his 
troubles are over, that when he gets here he will be free. He 
thinks when the ship docks at the pier that he can walk right 
out. To his sorrow, he finds that that is not so. A voice says: 
“Because you were not able to pay for a first- or second-class 
passage, you are out of luck, and you must go through further 
examination. 


65 


When they get here, they may find that it is necessary to 
divide the family. Many a woman has had her heart broken 
on finding that her children cannot come in and has rather 
returned with them than have her family divided. 

A short time ago I was in Washington pleading for Armenians. 
We all know the condition of Armenia. I am not going to take 
your time to explain. There was a child thirteen years of age 
who was obliged to go back because the father, who had been in 
this country for twelve years, couldn’t get his second papers on 
account of lack of education. The poor man had to work night 
and day to support nine of his children who were living over 
there. Finally, when he got one of those children over here the 
first day of the month, because the quota was full, the child had 
to be deported. Because of the richer people of the first and 
second class using up the quota, this child was to be deported. 

I took the matter to the Supreme Court. The justice couldn’t 
decide whether this child should be admitted or not. He said: 
“I shall take this girl out on a thousand dollars’ bail until I make 
up my mind.” 

Therefore, we ought to amend this law in such a way that it 
will be less harmful, more workable, more civilized, more fair 
to all immigrants. 

Miss M. E. Bingeman , Assistant Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce 
of Rochester , New York. 

Miss M. E. Bingeman: I represent the Rochester Chamber 
of Commerce, but particularly several groups in the Chamber 
of Commerce. We have an Industrial Management Council 
which, as you see from the name, represents the industries. We 
have a Council for Better Citizenship, which also speaks for 
itself. They overlap, and at least one-half of the Council for 
Better Citizenship is composed of the industries, and the entire 
Council is financed by the industries. The Council for Better 
Citizenship does the kind of work of which you have heard here 
today, and more; that is, it has a Service Bureau which comes 
into touch with all the sad stories. I give room to no one when it 
comes to “sob stories,” but I am not going to try to tell them, 
because there is no end to them; also, you have already heard 
some. But we have come in touch, through that Service Bureau, 
with from ten to twenty thousand of our population, and the 
contact was made by hundreds of our members. So much for 
that side. 


66 


On the other side we have the industries. They feel respon¬ 
sible to help to make good citizens of the immigrants we already 
have there, and they are giving as much as possible of their time 
to that. They have a number of ways of doing it. One is, 
getting in touch with the new citizens after they are admitted 
and keeping in touch with them; another is that the employer, 
through the Service Bureau of the Council, helps his own em¬ 
ployee to get his family reunited if that employee wants such 
help. 

On the other side of the “sob story” matter, I beg leave to 
point out one thing, and that is this—originally we didn’t ask 
these families to be separated. Always somebody from the 
family over in Europe came over here and separated himself 
first, and we can’t always make it up to them by getting them 
together again. We are not responsible for the original separa¬ 
tion, but we do our best to help them to be reunited. 

Both the industries and the Council for Better Citizenship 
have an interest in the immigration question, a great interest. 
Therefore a special committee was formed, composed of repre¬ 
sentatives of these two groups. The Chairman of the Immigra¬ 
tion Committee, which is just a committee of ten, is Justice 
J. B. M. Stevens. On that committee we appointed men who 
had, I might say, the extreme views—those who wanted the 
immigration bars put down entirely, and those who wanted 
them to exclude everything. We put them on the Committee, 
and they can fight it out under the chairmanship of the Justice. 

They had a number of sessions before they came to any con¬ 
clusions. I will not speak of the one that has not to do with any 
question. On the question before us, however, they said: “The 
Committee favors the principle of examination of prospective 
emigrants to the United States on the other side.” They asked 
me to bring back to them some definite suggestions as to how 
that can be done. 

The Committee favors an agency that will study the need of 
the sections of our country and provide for the proper distri¬ 
bution of immigrants. 

The Committee favors legislation permitting (not to use their 
phraseology) some modification in the contract labor law. They 
say it seems rather unreasonable that the kind of citizen that 
would likely be the best citizen is excluded by the contract labor 
law, that is, the kind of man who is thrifty enough so that he 

67 


doesn’t want to give up a sure thing for an unsure thing, doesn’t 
want to cut loose from the old country without having some 
prospect of work over here. They believe that excludes the 
kind of citizen who would make one of the very best. 

The Committee also favors more elasticity in the law for the 
provision of a reasonable agency to administer the immigration 
law in such a way as to evade apparent hardships resulting from 
the enforcement of exact quotas. 

The Committee is considering whether we shall urge Congress 
to amend the present immigration law so as to exempt from 
quota limitations near relatives of naturalized American citizens, 
that is, the dependent relatives, parents, if they are dependent, 
wives, of course, minor children, fiancees, dependent unmarried 
brothers and sisters. They have not taken a position on that, 
and they also hope I will bring back some light on it. 

They also are considering this: Shall they recommend legis¬ 
lation which will restrain American consuls abroad from grant¬ 
ing vises to prospective immigrants who are inadmissible to this 
country under the quota regulations ? They think something 
should be done; they are not ready to recommend just what. 

They are also considering having the legislature provide means 
to examine prospective immigrants for physical and mental 
defects at the port of embarkation. We are told, however, that 
there might be difficulties in that, because sometimes things 
develop on the way over. We are of the opinion that there 
would be no way to say to a person on the other side: “If you 
get on a ship, you may surely land over there,” because there 
are numerous instances of trachoma and some other things de¬ 
veloping on the way. 

The Committee also thinks that inasmuch as there exists a 
systematic smuggling of foreign-born into the United States by 
way of Mexico, Cuba and other West India Islands, the State 
Department at Washington should treat with the governments 
of countries contiguous to the United States, requesting them 
to forbid the landing of other than bona fide immigrants to their 
countries. 

This Committee of ten had a meeting with our Congressman, 
and we have arranged that whenever immigration legislation is 
on the board at Washington, he is coming up to go over the 
matters and get the opinions of and give information to our 
Immigration Committee. I am to bring back everything I can. 

68 


Dr. Spencer Dawes , Medical Examiner of the New York State Hospital 
Commission and President of the Interstate Immigration Board. 

Dr. Dawes: Whatever opinion I may have on the quota, 
my official connections forbid my saying anything about it, but 
I want particularly to speak of the matter of the selection of the 
immigrants on the other side. Nobody who is familiar at all 
with the travesty upon examination of immigrants now con¬ 
ducted at our ports of entry (where they are declared mentally 
and physically fit to enter the United States at the rate of eight 
per minute) would question the desirability of some other kind 
of examination, and I say that advisedly because I have seen it. 

Nobody who knows that the State of New York pays nearly 
$5,000,000 every year (wrung from its taxpayers) to support 
aliens insane in our state institutions—most of whom should 
never have been admitted to the United States and the balance 
of whom would certainly have been deported by any but a lax 
and careless federal government, and I say this advisedly—will 
deny the desirability of some change. I am suprised that any¬ 
body should propose an examination abroad by officials of the 
United States. It is certainly wise to have an examination, but 
it cannot be conducted by United States officials. It has been 
so passed upon, it has been so reported, by a committee com¬ 
posed of senators and representatives of the United States. No 
foreign government would permit it. It is illegal, it is illogical, 
and it is unconstitutional. But even were it possible to do this, 
it would be a ridiculous thing to do. It would mean the estab¬ 
lishment of a great force of paid officials abroad, open and 
susceptible to all kinds of influences; besides, it would violate 
the very principles of our present immigration law. 

Our immigration law today provides for the deportation and 
for the removal from the United States of certain prohibited 
classes. How, I ask you, would you for one minute be able to 
make a steamship company pay a fine and refund the money 
and take back to his own country an immigrant whom the 
United States officials had said over in Liverpool, for instance, 
was fit to enter the United States ? It couldn’t be done; it is 
out of the question. 

There is a method which is absolutely logical and which I 
have proposed to Congress and which has been approved by the 
various immigration officials. As a prerequisite to a vise by a 
United States consul abroad to an immigrant coming to this 

69 


country, he should present to that consul a medical certificate, 
a certificate made by a physician in the employ of the trans¬ 
portation company which proposed to bring him to the United 
States. This certificate is to be provided by the Commissioner 
General of Immigration, and on this should be embodied his 
family, his personal history, a careful examination, and the 
statement that he does not belong to the prohibited classes. A 
fine of not less than three times the cost of his transportation 
should be provided for if it be found, when he gets to this country, 
that a proper kind of an examination abroad could have de¬ 
termined that he belonged to the prohibited classes. 

If you follow that course you are not going to have a great 
bunch of them coming in as you do now. This thing which I 
propose would be a boon for honest steamship companies. 
They won’t have to pay fines; they won’t have to take back 
deportees, as they do now, and refund them the amount of their 
transportation. 

Then if you add to all of that the proposition of attaching to 
this application the dossier of the proposed immigrant, I think 
you have an admirable and perfect method of examination of 
immigrants abroad, and I say advisedly that I know of two 
very large steamship companies who will be very glad to wel¬ 
come this method of examination. The certificate doesn’t tell 
the immigrant he can come into the United States at all. It 
simply states that the steamship company states that he is fit 
to come. Then when he gets here, let him be examined legally 
at Ellis Island or the ports of entry, as now. 

Mr. John B. Trevor, of the Chamber of Commerce of the 
State of New York. 

Mr. Trevor: I must preface my remarks by saying that> 
under the rules of the Chamber of Commerce, no committee or 
delegate can bind that body upon any proposition which has 
not been specifically acted upon at a full meeting of the Chamber. 
For this reason, I will endeavor only to summarize four reports 
adopted by the Chamber on the subject of immigration. 

In January, 1921 the Chamber, at a special meeting, adopted 
a report advocating the bill then before Congress which subse¬ 
quently developed into the Dillingham Act. 

On the following year, in January, the Chamber again ad¬ 
vocated the support of the emergency legislation, because it 

70 


appeared probable that no legislation of a constructive character 
would be developed. 

In March of that year, the attention of the Chamber was 
drawn to the surreptitious entry of aliens in large numbers over 
our borders and by smuggling from steamships, and it was 
recommended that Congress, in extending the code of law, pro¬ 
vide some measure of protection against this very serious abuse. 

Finally, in December, 1922, the Executive Committee ad¬ 
dressed the Chamber as follows, in a report which was adopted 
by a large majority: 

“The Committee does not believe it is economically or 
politically desirable that an unregulated influx of immigrants 
should descend upon this country, as it threatens to do. It 
is undeniable that it is as uneconomical and unsocial for us 
to exclude the teeming people of the Orient hovering on the 
brink of famine as it is to call a halt on the inrush of people 
from devastated Europe and the Near East. The Executive 
Committee refers to these considerations in order that the 
Chamber may appreciate that there is a great deal to be said 
for the position taken by Mr. Johnson, that while the quota 
law is far from ideal, it has nevertheless, rendered a great 
service to the country. For this reason, the Executive Com¬ 
mittee believes that the best interests of the nation will be 
served by a gradual and progressive amendment of the present 
statute rather than by attempting to recast at one time all the 
legislation bearing on this difficult and intricate subject.” 

The Chamber has also held that advance notice of intention 
to settle permanently within our borders is a reasonable require¬ 
ment, and I may say that this provision affords the only practi¬ 
cal means of arriving at selection abroad. It is not conceivable 
that any sovereign power would permit the representatives of 
another country to pick and choose the most desirable from 
their nationals as suitable immigrants. Therefore we must con¬ 
fine ourselves to what is practical. 

In requiring this provision or a provision somewhat along the 
lines indicated—and in fact it has been embodied into the bill 
now before Congress—we would secure the elimination not only 
of the immediate immigrant who is undesirable, but probably 
of his family, and would prevent the hardship cases which are 
now brought to the attention of every meeting considering the 
problem of immigration. 

I would like to point out that while the Chamber has not 
acted specifically upon the present bill, it is my own earnest 
hope that it will do so. 


71 


Miss Bell Gurnee of the Woman's Department of the National 
Civic Federation. 

Miss Gurnee: As there seems to be so much controversy 
and confusion of mind on the subject of examination of immi¬ 
grants on the other side, I venture to quote Judge Box, Member 
from Texas and also of the House Immigration Committee on 
the matter: 

“There must be action. Congress will want to act. I 
know that Chairman Johnson and the majority of the House 
Committee want a new, sound, restrictive law. Dallying 
and fumbling increase the danger of non-action and should 
not be permitted. 

“Present action must be effectual. To undertake the im¬ 
possible, or blunder around with new and doubtful schemes 
will be dangerous. There has been much said in newspapers, 
magazines and lectures about inspecting and selecting immi¬ 
grants abroad. Some of this has come from private and some 
of it from official sources. That is an impossible thing. To 
fool with it means to waste time and do nothing, or to adopt 
some hasty, ill-considered expedient at the last moment. 
Foreign inspection is impossible; first, because it is dependent 
upon the consent of foreign countries, which could be ob¬ 
tained only by treaty agreement. 

“Other nations have not consented to such an arrangement 
and will not do so. The Immigration Commission, appointed 
during President Roosevelt’s administration, composed of 
such men as Senator Lodge, Senator Dillingham, Hon. John L. 
Burnett and Prof. Jeremiah W. Jenks, investigated this 
subject thoroughly, and in its report, filed in 1910, stated 
that the proposition had been mooted for some years. But 
they rejected it: First, because European governments would 
not consent to it; and, second, because thorough investiga¬ 
tion and consideration proved that it would not be workable. 
That report was filed thirteen years ago, and showed that for 
some years the government had then been considering such a 
plan and trying to find a way for its adoption, and that the 
idea had to be abandoned. These objections persist with 
increasing force up to the present time. The House and its 
committee has had new protests against the suggestion made 
and called to their attention within the last year. The ob¬ 
jecting powers, practically all foreign powers, say that this 
would be an invasion of their sovereignty. It would. Em¬ 
bassies and consulates are maintained in other countries only 
by treaty agreement, or equivalent accepted usage. The 
inspection and selection of immigrants is not a part of the 
work of a consulate or embassy under diplomatic usage or 
present treaty agreement. The fundamental difficulty in 
getting such an agreement arises out of two or three condi¬ 
tions: First, many foreign governments want to retain their 
best and send us defectives and dependent relatives. We 
want the best or none. They will not help us establish 
agencies on their soil to defeat their paramount purpose in 

72 


immigration matters and accomplish what they want to pre¬ 
vent therein. 

‘‘It is manifestly impossible to establish immigration ex¬ 
amining agencies at the door of every would-be immigrant, 
for our immigrants come from every nook and cranny of the 
world. 

“Those who want effectual action during the approaching 
session of Congress must see that it cannot be obtained along 
these lines. I know of no better way to mislead and divert 
the public mind and the efforts of Congress, so as to prevent 
any effectual action, than to raise now this proposition which 
has been raised and thrown aside again and again. If we 
haven’t been able to do anything with it during twenty years 
of effort, how may we expect to perfect, first, the treaty ar¬ 
rangement; and, second, the necessary legislation, in the 
course of a few months ? 

“Another suggestion which I make to you is that there is 
great danger in so framing the law as to admit great numbers 
of relatives of the immigrants who have come over during the 
last twenty-five years. The bulk of these are dependents and 
belong to the races constituting the new immigration. Some 
of them will come. It will not be possible or desirable to 
prevent that; but as a principal source of immigration they 
meet none of the requisites of desirable immigrants. They 
are not of the most desirable races. They are dependents. 
Those who want selective immigration, and those who want 
productive labor, will not find them in a mass of dependent 
relatives. Their admission in great numbers tends to defeat 
every sound purpose of the immigration law.” 

May I have a moment’s privilege to add a brief explanation 
of the admirable new feature in H. R. 101, Mr. Johnson’s new 
bill introduced December 5th ? 

The new law calls for delivery of a numbered certificate to 
every alien who applies for a passport vise to our consuls. There 
will be issued as many thousand Italian certificates as their 
legal quota allows; as many Russian; as many Polish or Greek 
or British as their quota numbers may attain. When these 
numbered certificates have all been given out, that will mean 
the Italian or Russian or British quota is exhausted, the vise 
will be refused and the alien will not sail. This will do away 
with all the excess quota hardship cases at Ellis Island, as well 
as render needless the terrible race of steamers across the ocean. 
No excess quota alien will get a chance to set foot on a steamer. 

The plan is so simple, like most discoveries, that we wonder 
it was not thought of before. 

Besides his numbered certificate, the immigrant will be given 
a questionnaire to fill out for himself and family, and if it should 
appear that any of them have any disease or other disability, 

73 


he will be informed that such person cannot be admitted. That 
will often result in the elimination of the whole family and save 
all the hard-luck cases of separation. 

And lastly, the immigrant will be obliged to show our consul 
his dossier —viz., his birth certificate, marriage papers, military 
record and police papers. The foreign governments keep files 
of the life history of their citizens, and require them to be shown 
on demand of the authorities. This is an additional safeguard 
against criminals, for no government is going to issue a passport 
to an undesirable they wish to be rid of, if our government re¬ 
quires the written record of such undesirability. 

This means an end to foreign governments “dumping” 
criminals into this country—a practice which has resulted in 
our having the highest percentage of murders of any civilized 
country. 

Never again will the United States receive officially accredited 
undesirables. 

Dr. S. H. Abkarian , President of the United Armenian Immigration 
and Welfare Societies. 

Dr. Abkarian: I rise to speak on a subject which I did not 
see in the published program, but about which we agreed that 
we may very well speak in this meeting, because it deals with 
the administrative aspects of our immigration laws just as 
much as other administrative changes of which we have spoken. 

The subject is: Shall the refugees, driven away from their 
homes to escape their country, for religious, political and racial 
reasons, be admitted if otherwise admissible, without being 
charged to quota ? 

Having the honor to represent the United Armenian Immi¬ 
gration and Welfare Societies, I would confine my remarks to 
the case of Armenians who are knocking at our gates for ad¬ 
mission. 

We all know about the sufferings and the destitution of Ar¬ 
menians whom we have once promised to support, whose in¬ 
dependence we have recognized officially, for whose independ¬ 
ence we have in Congress passed resolutions. Yet, for reasons 
that I am afraid could not have been averted, the Armenians 
have been almost annihilated. The remnant that is left has 
been driven away. They are scattered hither and thither, in 
many cases at unwelcome shores. Therefore, many of them 
having relatives and friends in this country turn their faces 

74 


toward this beautiful country which is the representative of 
freedom, of brotherly love, of Christian charity. Then, when 
they come here in droves, they are returned because they are in 
excess of quota, there having been only a handful of Armenians 
in this country before 1910. 

If my voice could have reached and become convincing to 
Congress I would have asked them at least to extend that time 
of the quota to 1916, when there were a larger number of 
Armenians in this country, on the basis of which a few of these 
refugees could have been accepted. 

I came here with a little hesitancy because I knew that these 
questions were not to be put to vote, that there would be no 
decision there, and therefore Congress would not know whether 
you would all desire such a law to be passed or not. Yet I came 
here to this representative body with the hope that some of the 
most influential gentlemen, some of the men and women who 
have influence with the governmental officials and members of 
Congress, some of the powerful organizations who could exert 
their influence, would hear me and would make an effort to 
bring about the enactment of a law that should make it possible 
for refugees, no matter of what nationality (Armenians, Rus¬ 
sians, Jews, Italians or Englishmen) to have a friendly hand 
extended to them, and to be welcomed here in the spirit of the 
forefathers of this American nation. 

When you send these Armenians back, where do you send 
them ? You send them back to Turkey simply to be butchered. 
Turkey will not accept Armenians any more because they are 
tired of butchering, their hands are too scarlet. They are be¬ 
ginning to be more or less ashamed of themselves, and they will 
not accept them. They send them back to Italy. And, let me 
ask you, is Italy more responsible for their destitute condition 
than we are ? Send them back to England. Are they more 
responsible than we are, as civilized human beings ? The 
Americans are responsible at least just as much as any other 
country. Let us make a law accepting refugees without being 
charged to quota. 

Mr. Charles Norman Fay, the Industrial Editor of the “New York 
Commercial .” 

Mr. Charles Norman Fay: It is impossible to ignore 
fundamental racial differences in endeavoring to constitute self- 
governing, homogeneous and happy peoples. One such problem 

75 


as that of satisfactorily assimilating our negro citizenship should 
be sufficient for the United States. Immigration from, and 
emigration to countries peopled by races with which inter¬ 
marriage gives deteriorated (or “half-breed”) and unsatisfactory 
results—races socially and politically unassimilable—should be 
permitted by all governments concerned only for commercial 
purposes and for temporary residence. Reciprocal treaties to 
that effect should be negotiated. As to assimilable immigra¬ 
tion, it seems to me evident that: 

(1) The immigrant must be needed here; that is, either for 
a specific job previously contracted for, or for general labor 
supply, at a specific destination; and should not be allowed to 
start for points where unemployment greater than normal al¬ 
ready exists. 

(2) The immigrant and all dependents accompanying him 
must be physically and mentally sound, and of good personal 
and political record. Educational tests should not be required 
unless and until the immigrant applies for naturalization. 

(3) The immigrant must actually reach the specific destina¬ 
tion named in passport, not stopping en route or diverting to 
other destination; and must be financed to get there with margin 
for contingencies and delays. 

To insure the foregoing, no new board or commission need be 
created. The existing Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and 
the Census Bureau, might in collaboration establish, perhaps 
with considerable saving, a joint Bureau of Immigration, which 
should: 

(a) Make and maintain a continuous survey or card index 
of all alien population, (or, better still, one including all popula¬ 
tion; which could be utilized also for existing registrations for 
schools, elections, and taxation, and for street and post-office- 
address directories; at greatly reduced cost of the combined 
services) and should keep it up to date by house-to-house can¬ 
vass twice a year; also it should 

(b) Maintain a continuous record of employment and un¬ 
employment, that is, of local demand for and supply of labor, 
colonization, etc.; and bulletin the results, especially showing 
local percentages of unemployment by trades and centers, to all 
United States Consuls abroad, at least once a month. 

(c) Permit existing quota law to expire without renewal; and 
repeal the contract labor law. In lieu thereof require steamship 

76 


lines to produce with each immigrant landed a passport issued by 
his home government, accompanied by a standard form of 
dossier , certifying to physical and mental soundness of immi¬ 
grant and accompanying dependents; his trade, personal and 
political good record; his destination in the United States; and 
evidence that he had a specific job awaiting him, as employee 
or on his own account, with, finally, his possession of trans¬ 
portation to destination and money to reach his specific job, or 
to start business on his own account, or both. Penalize the 
steamship lines in ample fine, plus costs of deportation and re¬ 
imbursement, for each immigrant brought over to the United 
States without the required passport and dossier , properly vised 
by the United States Consul nearest to the immigrant’s home 
town. 

(d) Require verification of dossier and vise of passport by 
nearest consulate, as above; and instruct all consulates to defer 
final vise say to thirty days, or some reasonable period, before 
sailing date, and to refuse vise altogether to destinations where 
last bulletin shows unemployment exceeding a stated percentage, 
fixed as normal by the Immigration Bureau. 

Judging from my experience in selling foreign drafts and pas¬ 
sage tickets in the Lake Superior mining district during the 
’70s, before the passage of the contract labor law, its repeal 
would not greatly affect importation of laborers by large em¬ 
ployers. The fare-cost, and the risk of desertion of the men im¬ 
ported, is so great as to become practically prohibitory. On 
the other hand, my experience as active trustee of the Theodore 
Thomas Orchestra showed that the contract labor law did not 
stop the importation of skilled musicians not obtainable in this 
country. They came without signed contracts, and waited six 
months to play with the orchestra. 

The substitution of the foregoing requirements after the 
expiration of the quota law and the repeal of the contract labor 
law would result, in my belief, in labor supply only when, where 
and as needed, without excess dumped at ports of entry by the 
steamship lines, for haphazard absorption by the general labor 
market. On the other hand, it would tend to level such fantastic 
wage rates as now prevail in the building trades; at a time when 
farmers must operate at a loss, and a million and a half of 
English-speaking mechanics are out of work in Great Britain, 
ten days away across the water. Both from a patriotic and a 

77 


humanitarian standpoint, such strained conditions should be 
allowed to correct themselves. No lowering of standards of 
living, or serious economic evil could possibly result from 
immigration so controlled. 

Miss Edith B. Caff , representing Madison House , New York City. 

Miss Edith Caff: I am an immigrant woman myself, an 
American citizen by choice. I work and live amongst the very 
poorest immigrants of the city. I have been interested in the 
theoretical reasons as to how the administration should be 
carried on. I will tell you some of my experiences as to how 
the law works—what good citizens and Americans it makes of us. 

I have seen men and women whose lives were absolutely 
broken through the administration of the law. We are all con¬ 
cerned about preserving the very best there is in the American 
Government and in American institutions. You think the 
Government is threatened by the immigrants because you don’t 
understand what they say in their language, because you don’t 
understand what alienates and what makes us good American 
citizens. 

The immigration law as it works now alienates people. I 
have had people come to me and ask me to help them become 
American citizens. I may be wrong, but I am never in a great 
hurry to help any one become an American citizen if he wants 
to take out his citizen papers in order to facilitate getting his 
peddler’s license or for some other particular reason. I don’t 
care whether he becomes an American citizen or does not. 
What I call an American citizen is a man or woman who really 
loves the country, understands the country, and wants to help 
the country to a better sort of life. 

I have known a man, for instance, who had left what he 
thought was his only interest in life, his wife, abroad. He came 
down here and worked like a slave, saving every cent he could. 
This man worked about ten hours a day in a box factory and 
lived the whole day on a piece of herring and a piece of bread 
and butter which he took along with him to the shop. He finally 
saved enough money to send for his wife. Then, when the wife 
arrived, she was not permitted to come in, and not only was 
she deported, but his life was ruined, because he has given of 
his health, he has given of his strength. Now, in addition he 
has given away his savings, and she is sent back. 

78 


1 he nicest thing about us down on the East Side or the West 
Side or anywhere is our love for our fellowmen, for our relatives 
abroad. If they are dependent, well, they are dependent abroad, 
too. Do you think for a minute, no matter what you say or 
what you do, that you can keep me from sending money to my 
brother in Russia ? I will. Instead of sending money to my 
brother in Russia, I would much rather take him over here. 
Possibly he can’t read or write, but that doesn’t make any 
difference. He is a good, honest fellow. He can come down 
here and work instead of my sending my earnings out of the 
country. And if he didn’t work here, why couldn’t I spend my 
money right here on him ? Wouldn’t it be much better than 
sending the money out of the country ? 

You call us dependents. I would like to know on whom we 
depend. We don’t depend upon any one. We depend upon 
our own hands and upon our own labor. 

You tell us one-third of the population in the insane asylums 
are immigrants. I say to this audience if it was put for one 
month into those dark, fearful tenements on the East Side, if 
for one month you were to go through those terrible things they 
are going through, I don’t know but probably a percentage of 
them would be a little bit changed. 

Time and time again I feel like prostrating myself before those 
men and women on the East Side, those men and women that 
you think are undesirables. You think that every man and 
woman who reads a Jewish paper in the car or a Polish paper is 
an alien who is plotting against the government. I say there 
isn’t a paper in the country, bar absolutely none, which does 
better Americanization work than the Jewish Socialist Daily 
Vorwaerts , and I will prove to you how. 

For instance, a great many of the papers printed in English 
will carry articles saying: “So many parents are arrested be¬ 
cause they don’t send their children to school.” They don’t go 
into the details. Our people who read it or who hear about it, 
without understanding what the law is, what compulsory educa¬ 
tion is, get the idea that all they look for in America is to send 
a parent to jail. 

The Jewish paper comes out with an article and explains to 
the people: “No one wants to send you to jail. This is the most 
wonderful law we have. Help to enforce it. If a man is sent 
to jail for not enforcing a law like that, then it is all right. He 

79 


should go to jail because the law is made for your welfare.” 
But just because this article is written in Jewish and you can’t 
read it and you don’t understand it, you think it is vicious, that 
we want to overthrow the American Government. 

I just took the extreme case in order to prove to you that not 
everything you don’t understand is wrong. There are some 
things that even you don’t understand, and still they are not 
wrong. 

Mr. W. S. Hays, of the National Slate Association, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. Hays: Let me give you in brief some experience on 
the administration of the present immigration law, taking up 
the topics under Question I. 

I don’t think there is any question about Section A. With 
respect to Section B we have a case right today in the fact that 
we cannot bring into this country anybody from the countries 
or nations or districts whose quotas have been exhausted until 
next July. Therefore I don’t think there is any question but 
what the limit allowed per month should be reduced. I believe 
that the 10% provision is all right for a maximum, but there 
should be a reservoir left for the eleventh and twelfth month. 
Somebody might want to come into the country in May and June 
of any given year, and we should let them come in if they areother- 
wise admissible. There should be some latitude allowed there. 

I don’t think there is any question about C, D, and E. With 
regard to F, I think that we should allow the same privilege to 
certain skilled artisans in different lines of work as we allow to 
the professional class. William Morris and these other fellows 
go across the ocean to bring in wonderful artists, musicians and 
others. Why isn’t it just as likely that we might reach a prob¬ 
lem in some industry in this country where we needed a skilled 
man, some particular class, some particular man. Why 
shouldn’t we be able to bring that man over here and not have 
him count in the quota ? He is just as valuable in his niche. 

The trouble in this country is that 96% of our boys and girls 
never see college, and yet most of our educational system is 
designed for the 4% that try to go through college, and only 
2% finally actually do go through college. I think that the 
sooner we realize that a trade is an asset to every man and 
woman no matter what he may take up later, the better off 
we will be. 


80 


There is no question about G and H. There is one other ques¬ 
tion about the administrative feature which we ran into this 
year again. The slate industry of England and Wales is very 
much crippled. As you all know, there is a steady unemployment 
over there. The country is actually paying out doles equivalent 
to many thousands of dollars a week to people that are unem¬ 
ployed in England. Yet under the administrative features of 
the present act we cannot so much as notify those unemployed 
slate people that we need men like them in our quarries. 

We found that the only chance we had was possibly to put 
information in their hands at the ports on this side. Most 
of the immigration officials wrote back and said: “We are sorry 
we can’t help you out, because they all come to this side looking 
for some relative, in response to an appeal from that relative.” 

Why shouldn’t it be possible to have on the other side a 
joint or consolidated ticket office of the steamship companies, 
and at that point have authentic information, approved by this 
government, regarding the opportunities for employment in 
this land. Have it clean-cut, without any argument, but defi¬ 
nitely based on fact, as to the actual number that could be 
provided for. That is entirely different from contract labor. 
I saw advertisements in Canada urging people to migrate or 
emigrate from Canada down to New Zealand or Australia. 
These are colonies of England, but the principle is the same. I 
saw also that Canada decided to let in all the men who were 
willing to work, and that is another factor that we need in this 
country. As one of my good colleagues of the slate industry 
told the Senate last year, we need some men in this country 
who have an “appetite” for the pick and shovel. 

I will tell you why we need some of these unskilled people. 
Today you saw in this fine presentation of Mr. Alexander the 
unrolling of some remarkable charts. Now, the bell boy could 
have dropped the chart down, but it took the skill and intelli¬ 
gence of Mr. Alexander to direct their making. On the other 
hand, the unskilled help is just as important as his direction, 
because if he took his time to go over and drop that, you would 
lose the continuity. 

Many skilled workers in this country are restricted because there 
are not enough of the semi-skilled. I think, therefore, the word 
“skilled” should be left out of this part of the law and we should 
make it any class of labor where the shortage has proven definite. 

81 


Mr. Giuseppe Vitelli , President of the Italian Chamber of Commerce of 
New York. 

The Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York, an Italo- 
American institution incorporated under the laws of the State 
of New York and composed of some seven hundred members, 
mostly citizens of the United States, takes this opportunity to 
express its sense and desires on the very important question of 
immigration, by submitting the following categorical answer 
to the questions stated in the program of the National Im¬ 
migration Conference: 

I. It is the sense of this Chamber that the Per Centum 
Limit Act expiring on June 30, 1924 should be retained, provided 
certain amendments were introduced, which will be stated under 
their respective items, amendments permitting the admission 
of near relatives without being charged to quota and likewise of 
merchants and tourists going abroad respectively for business 
or pleasure, who should be allowed to return at any time or be 
given at least the term allowance of one year. 

We are in favor of a per centum limit being retained but we 
feel that the present one should be extended, that many of the 
faults of the administrative features of the present law should 
be corrected, and that any limit fixed should be a net gain. 

We suggest the following amendments to the present Per 
Centum Limit Act: 

a. The quota control should be regulated in accord with 
foreign governments. We believe that cooperation is the best 
means to the proper solution of this question. 

b. The present 20% monthly quota for each nationality 
should be retained, as it is always quite difficult to keep within 
these limits. Further to reduce this limit to 10% would add 
an extra hardship to the many burdens of the immigrants. 

The unused portion of any monthly quota should be admis¬ 
sible in any succeeding months during the fiscal year. This is 
no more than equitable, as under the law a country is entitled 
to a yearly limit, and so long as this limit is not exhausted, it 
should be immaterial in which months of the year these emi¬ 
grants are admitted. 

c. It is the sense of this Chamber that not only the wife 
and minor children but also all other near relatives such as 
husband, children of age, father and mother, sister and brother 
or any other near relative dependent upon the relation to be 

82 


joined in the United States, should be admitted without being 
charged to quota, in order not to separate families, upon the 
unity of which is based social order and happiness and which 
is above all to be preserved in its integrity. 

d. An alien arriving after his nationality’s quota for the 
month has been exhausted, should not be returned to his 
country, but should be admitted under a new monthly quota so 
long as the annual quota has not been exhausted, and so long 
as the occurrence is not intentional. 

e. Resident aliens leaving the United States for a tem¬ 
porary visit abroad should be admissible upon their return 
within one year without being charged to quota. Their in¬ 
clusion in the quota deprives others of being admitted and 
defeats the purpose of the quota. It is no more than just that 
a person residing here should be extended the privilege of a 
sojourn abroad, together with the privilege of returning at any 
time he pleases within the period allowed, and should in any 
event be considered extra quota. 

f. Professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, 
ministers, professors and aliens belonging to any recognized 
learned profession or employed as domestic servants, so long as 
proven bona fide, or the near relatives of any such alien arriving 
with him or subsequently joining him, should be admitted with¬ 
out being charged to the quota. Such persons being learned and 
coming from stations beyond the ordinary walks of life, should 
be considered more desirable than the ordinary emigrant. Their 
number at most cannot be very great and their acquisition 
should be looked at in the light of an asset. 

g. Physical examination of aliens desiring to emigrate to the 
United States should, if required, be regulated in cooperation 
with foreign governments, depending upon the arrangements 
entered into with such governments under paragraph “a.” 

h. The exemption from quota should be extended in all cases 
to the immediate relatives but at least to the relatives of those 
who have resided in this country for no less than one year and 
have declared their intention of becoming citizens, and provided 
further that satisfactory assurance is given that they can sup¬ 
port such relatives or that these are self-supporting. 


83 


Mr. H. C. Reynolds , of Scranton, Pa., representing the ice manufacturing 

industry 

Mr. Reynolds: When an immigrant, whether he came in 
prior to the enactment of the quota law or since, has come to 
this country and returned for a period limited to a year, he ought 
to be admitted, having established his right to come into the 
country, having become in a sense inured to our ideas of national 
life and accustomed himself to observe the laws, if he can show 
by his former employers his value as a contributing factor to 
our economic welfare. 

It seems to me fairly crystallized in my experience, and I 
have noticed it here, that a reasonable restriction upon immigra¬ 
tion is essential to our future prosperity and the safety of our 
institutions, and particularly so a selective restriction. 

This country was made by immigrants, and of course all of us, 
earlier or later, were immigrants. A curious thing has happened 
in this country within the last few years. Nearly the same 
number of professional men and women came to this country in 
the year ending 1922 as of day laborers. While there were more 
than 200,000 who may be allocated to the higher skilled labor 
and miscellaneous, we suffered a net loss in common labor for 
the year ending December 30, 1922, of 16,800. 

I was surprised to hear this morning the first speaker say we 
had plenty of labor, but I was not so surprised when I heard he 
was in the silk business. Of course you know that work in the 
silk mills is performed in large measure by female employees, 
and there may be an excess of these. But the native American 
and the children of the immigrant are not laborers. They fill 
the professions and the skilled trades and avocations quite 
generally distributed through almost all of the nationalities. 
They do not come here aspiring to continue the arduous toil to 
which they were accustomed in the old country. The thing 
that beckoned to them was that the door of opportunity was 
opened wide for them, not the opportunity for day labor, 
but the opportunity to shine and take their places in a high 
position. 

I had hoped there might be some crystallization through some 
action on the part of this organization looking to the restriction 
of immigration, particularly selective immigration, and if we are 
not to be permitted to resolve upon our position and crystallize 
our views, let these remarks of ours go down to the Congress of 

84 


the United States, where they will receive, I know, the high 
degree of appreciation and encouragement that they deserve. 

Mr. F. H. Kinnicutt, of the Immigration Restriction League 
of New York. 

Mr. Kinnicutt: By common consent it seems to have been 
agreed that the question of relatives comes under the point we 
are discussing, that is, the administrative features of the law. 
The present law provides, as one of its administrative features, 
that a preference shall be given to relatives within the 3% 
quotas. 

You can readily see that that is a very loose provision. They 
all come higgledy-piggledy together, of course, and apply for 
vises under the quotas in the early months of the year. Where 
a relative comes along, of course, he is given the preference. 
That is the law, but there is no distinction between the two 
classes. By the last months of the year, the quota may be 
filled up, and there are still relatives coming, although if those 
relatives had shown up earlier in the year, they could have been 
admitted. 

The new bill which has already been introduced in this session 
by Chairman Johnson of the House Committee, it seems to me, 
makes a reasonable provision, although it may not be the best 
possible provision. The organization that I represent hasn’t 
had a chance to pass on it because we haven’t had a meeting. 
We have approved of the general principles of the present. 
Johnson Bill, making some allowance for relatives, but of course 
it has only been in the last few days that the bill has been pub¬ 
lished. 

That bill provides for 2% quotas based on 1890, and it handles 
the provision regarding relatives in this way: it gives additional 
quotas to the same extent, that is, the whole 2% more, but 
those quotas are not to be used by any but relatives. There is 
thus a distinct provision for relatives. 

I think we all have to be perfectly fair in all this discussion. 
While my organization believes in this principle, I think possibly 
some modification might be made for a small country that wasn’t 
here at all in 1890, like Armenia. On the other hand, you can’t 
have a wide-open provision without any limit for relatives, 
unless you want to take the European point of view and not 
the American as dictating our policy. 

85 


President Coolidge said in his message to Congress the other 
day (and I think we would all agree with him) that America 
must be kept American. Now, here we are with 13,700,000 
foreign-born in this country today. We all know that some of 
our fellow-citizens and those we hope will become fellow-citizens 
who come from foreign lands have very large families. I suppose 
it would be safe to say that an average of three or four would be 
putting it below the mark. Now, if you multiply 13,000,000 
by three or four, you are going to get a larger immigration than 
we have ever had since the history of the country began. There 
has to be some limit. 

As one of the previous speakers pointed out, when an immi¬ 
grant comes over here without his family, he is the man that 
takes the responsibility for separating the family. I submit 
that it is a scientific, carefully thought out provision to have a 
separate quota for the relatives, with possibly a special allow¬ 
ance, an arbitrary allowance, not too large an amount, for 
countries that were not here at the census which is taken as 
the basis of the quota, whatever census it may be. 

Mr. N. Behar, of the National Liberal Immigration League. 

Mr. N. Behar: Opposition to immigration is not new in 
this country. When the Dutch began to flock hither, in English 
colonies, it was declared that they were the scum of the earth, 
that they would ruin the land and would never be assimilated. 
With the Irish, in the last century, it was another song. Judge 
Goff told us some years ago: “I am a very old man, but I re¬ 
member when I was a boy the condition of the Irish in this 
country was as bad as the condition of the Hebrews under the 
Czar.” But the Irish came. Then it was the Germans. You 
heard scientific men declare that the country was endangered by 
these foreigners, that they would lower the moral standard of 
the nation. Well, there was a great scientist in America, Frank¬ 
lin, perhaps the greatest light in the modern world. Do you 
know what he said of the Germans ? “They are undesirable; 
they are stupid.” You see, even a Franklin made the mistake 
to misjudge a great race. 

The Bible enjoins us to “love the stranger,” because the 
stranger looks strange and we instinctively dislike strangeness. 

My point of view is this: This mischievous 3% law must be 
repealed, and it will be repealed, and you will no more lose tim§ 

86 


with quotas and such other questions. Dr. Charles W. Eliot, 
former President of Harvard University and certainly one of the 
most learned men in this country, said: “No attempt should be 
made to regulate the number of healthy and vigorous immi¬ 
grants to be admitted annually or within any period long or 
short.” That is a sound policy. 

I heard today that there is a reservoir of labor in the Ap¬ 
palachians or somewhere. I hope that we shall be able to furnish 
labor to Italy and to other countries. I remember some years 
ago I heard my late friend Augustus P. Gardner say that if we 
had no foreign labor, we would do our work ourselves. He said 
to me: “My children and your children will do the work.” 
Just a little after that, I heard that a Harvard professor engaged 
his class to do heavy work on a construction job; but this did 
not last long. Americans will not do the heavy, the dirty work 
which the immigrants do. That is not only true of native 
Americans but even, as it was said, of the children of immi¬ 
grants, once they have passed through our public schools, and 
have been Americanized. They will not do the same dirty labor 
that their fathers did. So we need constantly a fresh supply of 
labor from the other side. 

There is a state of affairs which is a real argument against im¬ 
migrants, and it is usually brought out by some Congressman 
who has gone through a foreign settlement and has heard all 
these foreign languages used. This lack of acquaintance with 
our language is very regrettable, but the immigrants themselves 
regret this more than we. These immigrants are very anxious 
to learn our language, but we have not proper teachers for them. 
Able, intelligent men and women prefer to teach in high schools 
instead of teaching immigrants. Why not ? They receive al¬ 
most twice as much. We must all work to have the Federal 
Government appropriate a fund for immigrant education and 
allot most of it to the City of New York, so that we may give 
such teachers a minimum of $ 7.50. This is the most practicable 
solution of the Americanization problem. 

Mr. A. R. Smith } Editor of “The P^rt of New York,” New York City. 

Mr. A. R. Smith: I am here, not as a representative of any 
steamship interest, but to suggest, as something beneficial to the 
Steamship interests engaged in bringing immigrants here, that 

87 


all of these features from A to G, are worthy of adoption, in my 
judgment. 

If enough of us get up and say that, perhaps the management 
here, in forwarding to Congress, as I hope they will do, an ex¬ 
pression of the views of this meeting, will say that a majority 
of those present advocated A, B, C, D, E, F, G. 

The admissions should be limited to 10% per month as pro¬ 
vided for here in B, and of course, the wives and minor children 
of the immigrants should be admitted here. But I have heard 
nobody raise the question as to the physical condition of these 
immigrants’ wives and children or of the non-quota people who 
are admissible. They probably would have to go through a 
physical examination, and if disqualified by disease, the family 
would remain separated. Instead of sending immigrants back 
by the thousands, as we sometimes do, some arrangement should 
be made for their retention here so that they may come in when 
the next monthly quota comes around. 

There is pending in Congress and there was pending in the 
last Congress a suggestion that would require that at least 
50% of the immigrants coming to the United States should come 
in American vessels. I offer that suggestion here as something 
worthy of consideration. It seems to me it would be a wonderful 
thing if a meeting could be held in Washington where the legisla¬ 
tion is going to be passed bearing upon this immigration ques¬ 
tion, which members of Congress could attend and there get the 
views of those who are interested in this subject. 

Mr. H. H. Smith, of Detroit f representing the Michigan Manufacturers' 
Association. 

Mr. H. H. Smith: I desire to divide, if possible, the question 
No. 1 and address myself briefly to what perhaps to many of us 
has appeared to be the major question before the Immigration 
Conference. If we could so divide it within the rules of the meet¬ 
ing, the question would be: Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be 
retained without change by extending the period of its operation 
beyond June 30, 1924 ? In what I say I hope I can reflect 
something of the thought of the industrial workers, manufac¬ 
turers and the farmers of the Middle West, for I find in what I 
have heard so far in the conference, that there has been as yet 
no representation of any thought west of the Alleghanies. We 
do receive a large number of immigrants, and we are vitally in- 

88 


terested in the immigration problem. We do believe that the 
Per Centum Limit Act should be retained without change by 
extending the period of its operation beyond June 30, 1924, but 
we do not believe that the period of that extension should be 
any longer than is absolutely necessary. We regard the Per 
Centum Limit Act as a temporary measure, arbitrary in its 
provision, grounded upon no sound theory, and one which must 
be replaced by some other act that shall more intelligently deal 
with the immigration problem. 

We believe it should be amended in its administrative features. 
Without calling attention to the particular amendment that we 
think should be made, I want to endeavor to state what I believe 
should be the spirit that should animate all the changes in those 
administrative features or in any other features of the law. 

We believe that all the administrative and other features of 
the law should be directed to procuring for citizenship immi¬ 
grants who would be fitted for and directed to the basic indus¬ 
tries of the country, the agricultural industry and the great 
productive, manufacturing industry. 

We desire more laborers in the factories of the Middle West. 
Those who say they are now filled to overflowing and have suffi¬ 
cient labor are not acquainted with the situation there. We 
have drawn from the farms in the Middle West all the agricul¬ 
tural labor that was upon them. We have denuded the farm 
of its cheap labor, and we have done our part in that way to 
destroy the prosperity of the farmer and have so created one 
of the great, fundamental problems confronting the government 
of today. 

We think that every change in the law should be made in the 
spirit of attempting to secure for the United States of America 
those new citizens who will not seek the great centers of popula¬ 
tion primarily, but who can be directed and will gladly go back 
to the soil, there to be created into real American citizens. We 
have the greatest faith that, given one generation upon the soil 
of the Middle West, there can be created out of almost any 
nationality a substantial, sound citizen, fully imbued with all 
the aspirations of American citizenship. 

We are not content with this Per Centum Law as it stands 
now, and we think what was said by the two opening speakers 
has demonstrated that we are but upon the threshold of a study 

89 


of the immigration problem that shall finally lead us to a much 
more intelligent discussion of the question. 

It is conceded that we need American citizens fully in touch 
with American ideals, filled with American aspirations. Per¬ 
haps we might differ somewhat as to what those are. In the 
Northwest we have come to think that we may not be in tho¬ 
rough accord with what we have thought was the great funda- 
menta 1 of American institutions, the right of private property, 
because in the Dakotas and Minnesota the one race that has 
made the most direct attack, organized political attack, upon 
that fundamental American institution has been the Norwegian 
and the Swedish race in the Non-Partisan League which they 
there organized. 

I am only stating these problems. I am not attempting in 
any way to discuss them. 

Secondly, have we as yet studied the relation of the Jewish 
race to our American institutions ? There are no statistics as 
to that in all the study that we have had on the immigration 
problem, and yet I am told that from Poland almost all the 
Polish immigrants are from the Jewish race, and that one out 
" of every four of the immigrants that enter Ellis Island is of the 
Jewish race. We know that there is no nationality and no race 
that so carefully segregates itself in our community with its 
own religion, without intermarriage, and is so persistent in its 
racial attributes as that race. It may be entirely in accord with 
our institutions. I won’t express an opinion as to that. 

I use those illustrations, and one more—the Italian race. 
Those who travel in northern Italy find there a people absolutely 
identical, it appears, in appearance, in aspirations, in hopes, in 
: labor, in manufacture, with the best of our citizens. 

The quota law does not deal with any of these problems, and 
I use those only as illustrations of how we hope that it can be 
amended and changed. 

Let this Per Centum Law go forward, but only until we can 
study all of these new factors in the problem, and let its ad¬ 
ministrative provisions be modified continually to provide 
stricter examination, more selective selection, abroad if possible, 
certainly here, so that we can direct those citizens not into the 
great centers of population but upon the farms and.in the great 
manufacturing industries. 


90 


Mr. Howard Bradstreet , Director of Adult Education , 
of Hartford , Conn. 

Mr. Bradstreet: As long as the soil of the West has been 
alluded to, I would like to say that we also have soil as well as 
silk in Connecticut, and that the tobacco and onion interests 
agree with the point made by the West. Most of the speakers 
have assumed that we are all in agreement on subhead C, and 
therefore need do nothing more about it. 

Now, the issue has been very clearly marked by two of the 
speakers this afternoon. Is the uniting of a family a matter of 
bringing further dependents into this country ? Are members 
of a family dependents ? That is a very important question, 
and relates to the attitude of the group with which I am working. 
They say: “Let us continue the percentage until we find more 
information on the working out of this proposition.” 

In order to get more information, one of the women’s clubs of 
Hartford has agreed, in the month of January, to make a call, 
through the press, for all the divided families in Hartford to 
report on certain nights of the week, with a view to finding just 
how many there are, just who they are, what nationality they 
belong to, what position they occupy in the community. That 
can be done, I estimate, in three evenings of two hours each, 
covering perhaps five or six hundred families. It is desirable 
to know exactly what we are talking about in this matter. 
Let us remember also that we are up against a proposition 
which has been alluded to here this afternoon. If you will read 
Mr. Johnson’s House Bill No. 101, you will see that in the early 
part of it there is a most magnanimous admission of all relatives 
of citizens and non-citizens, but a little later on, the number is 
limited to the same number admissible under the quota. 

If the 2% quota is based on 1890, you will find there will be no 
reunited Armenian families, Greek families, Italian families or 
Polish or Russian families. Therefore, an issue which will come 
up very strongly after Christmas is: In admitting people to this 
country, shall we say to a man: “Do you hereby agree to leave 
your mother home ?” “Yes, sir.” “Your father ? Your wife ? 
Your children ?” “Ye*s, sir.” “Come in, then.” But if the 
man says: “No, I will not. I insist on having my wife or my 
children or my mother,” shall we say, “Stay out ?” 

If such relatives seem to the majority of the people as being an 
undesirable element to have come in to add to our immigration, 

91 


then we must stand by the provisions of the Johnson Bill which 
makes it impossible to reunite the families. But if we are going 
to stand on the American proposition that the family is an im¬ 
portant unit, we must face the situation that there is a very 
large number of divided families, and endeavor to find out who 
they are and let them be reunited during this period. 

Mr. L. J. Ellis , of the National Liberal Immigration League. 

Mr. L. J. Ellis: In the discussion of this question here it 
seems to be conceded that we, as a nation, must act from a 
wholly selfish standpoint, that considerations of justice and 
humanity should not influence this nation in its immigration 
policy. We entirely repudiate this theory and believe that sel¬ 
fishness in a nation reacts on it as on a family or the individual 
and ultimately leads to disaster; that any legislation which is 
not based on the fundamentals of righteousness, of Christianity, 
is bound to miscarry. We contend that liberality in our immi¬ 
gration laws rather than restriction works to the nation’s wel¬ 
fare. We therefore oppose a curtailment of the present quota 
and advocate its repeal. 

It has been contended here that this nation has reached the 
point of saturation as to immigration. Yet there is enough un¬ 
improved land in the states of Arkansas and Missouri to care 
for the entire population of France, Belgium and Germany and 
be no more crowded than those European states are today. 
There are thousands in our cities, from foreign lands, who were 
brought up on farms and who would gladly form the nuclei of 
colonies in the different states if shown the way. The well- 
recognized difficulty of placing immigrants where they are 
needed could be overcome by an organized effort on the part of 
the Government to form such nuclei in the different states. 
Every state in the Union has a large acreage of idle and unim¬ 
proved land admirably adapted for colonization purposes. Once 
these nuclei or immigrant colony centers were started they 
would grow by natural accretion from abroad. 

As illustrative of the opportunities for such colonization en¬ 
terprise, let me relate an incident: A Protestant Italian clergy¬ 
man applied to me for help in locating himself and a large part 
of his congregation in a farm colony. His parishioners were 
mostly farmers and were having a hard time in the city. His 
proposition was that we finance his congregation to the extent 

92 


of building a community church and cabins for his church mem¬ 
bers, giving them a reasonable time in which to pay for the land 
and buildings. They had some cash but not enough to carry 
through their enterprise. 

Considerations involving our culture in the arts and sciences, 
the friendly intercourse of nations and the more intimate knowl¬ 
edge, one nation or race of the other, require an emphatic “yes” 
to paragraph “f” under Question I. For even we Americans 
with our smug pharisaical self-complacency know that the 
world’s best artists are not American born, that we seek these 
aliens, whom we now keep at arm’s length, for entertainment, 
instruction and inspiration. 

The percentage limit act should be repealed. The dread of 
so many timid souls lest we be overrun with labor or crowded 
to the wall by immigrants or our institutions be tainted or 
wrecked by them is unwarranted by history and takes no note 
of the fact that the majority of immigrants seeking these shores 
are fired by praiseworthy ambition, moved by the same motives 
as ourselves and are like us in the essentials of character, al¬ 
though a different environment, ofttimes, has made them, tem¬ 
porarily, a little different temperamentally and in manners. 
But these differences pass away in a generation or two and 
when they takeout their citizenship papers they are more proud 
of being American citizens than many of our best citizens, who 
are not unmindful of some of the weaknesses of our Government. 
These do not forget that the last questionable amendment to 
our Constitution was not passed with the help of our citizens of 
foreign extraction. Nor can any of us forget their loyalty to the 
United States of America in the World War, their readiness to 
help and their bravery in the battle front. 

It is well to note in passing, that those favoring restriction 
are principally from inland and not from seacoast cities. They 
are those who have little contact with the immigrant, those who 
do not know him and not those who are in daily contact with 
him. We should remember that the tide of immigration is con¬ 
stantly changing, that it flows back and forth in response to a 
demand. We have witnessed the emigration of the farmer from 
these United States to Canada and the reverse. We shall wit¬ 
ness an immense emigration from these United States to Russia 
as soon as a stable government is established there. The vast 
undeveloped and untouched resources of Russia will call back 

5>3 


to their homes many of the thousands of native Russians who 
came here because of troublous times in Russia and many of 
those of other nationalities now domiciled among us. Russia 
then will also be a lure to many of our native-botn. So it would 
be well for us to anticipate that time and encourage the desirable 
foreigner to come now and make his home with us. If material 
greatness is our aim, if increased trade and commerce is desired, 
if greater strength is desired so that we may better resist aggres¬ 
sion from abroad, it behooves us to make good use of our 
opportunities now. 

A literacy test turns away from our shores frequently a most 
valuable immigrant, while it lets in professional crooks, anarch¬ 
ists and certain educated deadwood whose absence is much 
more desired than their presence. This country needs healthy 
minds and muscular bodies with willing hearts. This is the 
kind of immigrant that the literacy test often forbids to enter 
here. The provision looks too absurd to need to be discussed. 

Referring to paragraph “f”, it is of no concern to us whether 
an admitted immigrant ever learns to read and write unless he 
wants to become a citizen. If he is content to remain an alien 
it is his loss if he does not know how to read and write, and so 
long as he is content to remain in ignorance and an alien, we 
have no right to force an education on him. And we would be 
very much better off if the big majority of our immigrants never 
became citizens for the reason that they are too new to vote in¬ 
telligently. This mad desire of many political organizations to 
make citizens of our newly arrived immigrants, is most unfor¬ 
tunate for the nation. Few of them are ever fitted to vote and 
we should not encourage the majority to become citizens. So 
why worry about educating one who has not the ambition to 
seek it ? We are thereby only helping to adulterate our citizen¬ 
ship. It is much better for them to remain citizens of their 
native land and come and go as the demand for their labor 
requires. Complaint is often made that they make their money 
here and send it to their home folks. We have no right to com¬ 
plain. They have given us value received and they are to be 
admired for their fidelity to their needy kindred and should 
be encouraged. We should oftener call to mind the words 
“O ! where is the man with soul so dead, who never to himself 
hath said, ‘This is my own my native land’ ” and sympathize 
with their yearning for the old folks at home. Welcome the 

94 


immigrant to our shores. Let him go and come as he desires, 
so long as he behaves himself, for his sake and ours. If he is 
of the illiterate class and we deal justly with him, we are the 
gainer by his sojourn with us whether that sojourn be long 
or short, because he is not going to stay unless he works. 

Mary E. Hurlbutt, Director of the International Migration Service of the 
Young Women's Christian Association. 

In the following remarks I am not representing the position 
of my organization, but expressing my own personal views. 
These views are based on three years’ experience in adjusting 
the problems of immigrants in this country and on a survey of 
immigration conditions in ten countries of Europe. 

I want to discuss chiefly two administrative questions. It 
seems to me that a practical understanding of the details of 
administration are essential to wise decision regarding some of 
the principles discussed here. First, in regard to the proposals 
for the control over quotas to be vested in American consular 
offices abroad. As is well known, nationality under the quota 
law is determined by country of birth. To take one example, 
the annual quota for persons of Polish birth is 30,977. Now, in 
order to protect Polish people from the hardship of sailing to the 
United States only to be rejected as ‘in excess quota,* accurate 
information should be available in all parts of the world from 
which Poles might embark to the United States—and be it re¬ 
membered that Poles do not embark only from Poland, but may 
embark from any country in which they happen to be resident. 
The number admissible will vary daily. It will be lessened by 
each admission, but a ‘vacancy* will occur whenever, owing 
to illness, or any of the other hundred accidents which beset a 
person plans for sailing are voluntarily relinquished; vacancies 
will occur each time a person is refused admission and deported 
from one of the United States ports, and a vacancy will occur 
each time a decision is pending at Ellis Island until after the 
quota month expires. These daily fluctuations determine 
whether a Pole will be admitted or debarred under the quota. 
Needless to say, the same facts must be known in regard to the 
forty-one groups recognized by the quota law, if we would 
prevent the tragedy of excess quota cases. 

A most expensive administrative machine with communica¬ 
tion facilities to all parts of the world and with the power to 

95 


secure daily official information from the United States immi¬ 
gration authorities is required to make this information available. 
Such a machine has actually been devised through the coopera¬ 
tion of the much harassed steamship companies. All the more 
important lines (with a few notable exceptions) have cooperated 
in the establishment of a registration system with offices in all 
the principal countries in the world. To these registration 
offices every steamship agent of the lines cooperating in this 
scheme must report the sale of each ticket, indicating the na¬ 
tionality of the purchaser. Through a system of clearing 
houses this information is actually kept fairly up-to-date and 
available wherever tickets are sold. The number of tickets 
each agent may sell is controlled from the central registration 
office. This is an expensive system. It requires a vast adminis¬ 
tration, but if well administered, it reaches into the smallest 
towns where prospective immigrants buy tickets, and therefore 
can be available to him before an immigrant sells his property 
and gives up his home. 

During the first year of the quota law, this registration 
system had hard sledding, but it is operating with increasing 
efficiency. The cost is borne ultimately by an extra charge on 
the tickets, that is, the burden is carried by the prospective 
passengers, who, for their own protection, must not be allowed 
to buy tickets if they are to be in excess quota. Steamship 
companies would naturally prefer to transfer this vast adminis¬ 
trative burden to the United States Government. This is not 
practicable, in my opinion. I would propose that the United 
States Government should cooperate with the steamship com¬ 
panies in perfecting their existing machinery, 

1. By penalizing steamship lines that will not cooperate 
in this registration system; 

2. By making available to the registration offices imme¬ 
diate and accurate information on rejected and pending cases; 

3. By exempting from the quota law such groups as do¬ 
miciled aliens returning from temporary visits abroad; the 
professional classes listed in Question II g, of the Conference 
program; the wives and children of American citizens, and 
resident aliens, and bona fide students. 

The inclusion of these groups in the quota upsets every 
attempt to calculate in advance the quota of any nationality 
which will be available at a future time. Finally, and for the 
same reason, persons admitted because of undue hardship, al- 

96 


though in excess of a monthly quota, should never be charged 
to subsequent quotas. 

The second administrative problem which I would like to 
discuss concerns the proposals for the examination of aliens 
abroad by officials of the United States Government. As Dr. 
Dawes so wisely said today, this proposal which sounds so 
humane to the uninitiated is not feasible. Dr. Dawes pointed 
out the objection based on the attitude of foreign governments; 
but even if this could be overcome the administrative expense 
of really expert and adequate inspection in every emigrating 
country would be an intolerable burden. We are not willing to 
pay for a humanly decent and efficient examination of aliens at 
the thirty or more ports in our own country, and yet we propose 
to reproduce this system in all the principal countries of the 
world. One poorly paid and therefore low-grade inspector, 
stationed in a foreign country could not be expected to make 
fair and expert decisions under the very complex provisions of 
our immigration law. Congress would be loath to allow such 
isolated officials wide discretionary powers to be exercised far 
away from any supervision. Every case rejected by an immi¬ 
gration inspector at our ports is re-examined by a special board, 
and if excluded by this board, is appealed to Washington for 
review by the Department of Labor. This right of appeal would 
be nullified at a distance of three thousand miles. Injustice 
would be inevitable because expert examination would require 
too large a force. The situation would invite attempts at 
political pressure and graft on the one hand, and exploitation on 
the other. I feel that the final decision in regard to the eligibility 
of any immigrant must be made at the American port. The 
wide publicity given to many deportation cases is misleading. 
The actual percentage of persons rejected is small in comparison 
to the great number admitted (about 3%, I believe). Never¬ 
theless even a small number of tragedies should be obviated. 

I would propose that the United States Government recog¬ 
nize the predisposition of certain governments to cooperate with 
us in controlling the emigration of their nationals to meet our 
qualifications. Foreign governments are beginning to realize 
that the economic, physical and social results of emigration that 
results in deportation are too disastrous to be permitted. Such 
governments as Italy, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Germany are 
making great strides in efficient examination of their own 

97 


nationals prior to embarkation. Their difficulty lies in the 
ambiguities of our law and in the differences in opinion preva¬ 
lent among all doctors in diagnosing diseases. I have talked 
to officials in several countries who are responsible for receiving 
applications for emigrants’ passports. They have unanimously 
expressed a deep interest in the requirements of the United 
States immigration law, but have also emphasized (and in this 
they have my hearty sympathy) the difficulty of obtaining 
clear up-to-date information as to the interpretation of the law 
by American authorities. Nor are the consuls any help to 
them. I have discovered the widest variation in the practice 
at different American consulates in exercising their discretionary 
powers in controlling emigration through the granting of vises. 
I have long wished that the United States Government would 
investigate the feasibility of sending to each of the chief coun¬ 
tries of emigration, experts in the United States immigration 
law to be attached to the American embassies in these countries; 
these attaches not to have the power of accepting or rejecting 
immigrants, but to have the responsibility of giving information 
concerning the American law, the administrative interpretation 
of the law, and the procedure under the law to officials of these 
foreign governments or to any individual inquirer wishing to 
ascertain his probable eligibility. The conferences' which I 
have had with many persons abroad lead me to think that such 
appointments would be warmly welcomed and that the infor¬ 
mation thus made available would be of immense importance 
in preventing people from faring forth on the great adventure 
across the seas in ignorance of the legal requirements which 
they must face. Greater consideration should be given to the 
points of view of other countries as to the effects of our law. 

It is worth considering whether in countries in which govern¬ 
ments are not willing to take any responsibility for the emigra¬ 
tion of their nationals, the United States Government could 
afford to place high-grade inspectors qualified to examine pros¬ 
pective immigrants, if not to pass on their final admissibility, 
yet to warn them of the grave danger of their rejection at the 
American port. 

Those of us whose daily work brings us in contact with the 
human tragedies of deportation cannot be indifferent to the 
conclusions reached by such a conference as this is. There are 
many points which have been brought up which I {should like 

98 


to discuss from the point of view of practical experience and 
the working out of the law in human lives. But perhaps more 
than all else, I should like to register my conviction of the value 
and importance of a Commission, such as has been proposed in 
Question IV for a more scientific and comprehensive study of the 
whole immigration question, with the hope that such a Commis¬ 
sion would embrace in a study the human and social effects of 
any proposed law and the point of view of foreign governments 
as to the difficulties of its administrative features. 

Adjournment 


99 


Ill 


THURSDAY EVENING SESSION 
December 13, 1923 

The meeting convened at 8.30 o'clock , Mr. John A. Penton , of Cleve¬ 
land , presiding. 

Chairman Penton: It has been shown by the discussion 
this morning and this afternoon, that the immigration problem 
is a very many-sided propostion, full of complex situations. It 
is not only one concerning our national progress and our na¬ 
tional welfare, it is not only an economic, a political and a 
sociological problem, but it is one that, unless carefully handled, 
may have in the future, as I think it has had in the past, an 
important influence upon our prosperity and upon our political 
conditions. I think the time has come (I am speaking my own 
opinion only) for us, before we start forward in another program 
of immigration legislation, to do what we can in this body to 
bring to the front such light as we can upon the entire subject, 
with the hope that we may be able to unite, as far as the Con¬ 
ference Board is concerned, upon a program, upon an agenda, 
which we may be able to prepare and present in some dignified 
form for the consideration of those who may have to do with 
its solution. 

The program to be considered this evening is: “ Should the Per 
Centum Limit Act be retained with amendments in respect to the 
percentage restriction features ?” This morning and this after¬ 
noon’s session had to do with the administrative features. This 
deals with the important phase known as the “Per Centum 
Restriction.” 

Mr. Philip W. Henry } representing the American Institute of 
Consulting Engineers. 

Mr. Philip W. Henry: The American Institute of Consult¬ 
ing Engineers, at its annual meeting held January 15, 1923, 
appointed a committee of five to consider and report on the 
subject of immigration. This committee was composed of 
Philip W. Henry, W. W. Colpitts, W. S. Kinnear and F. A. 
Molitor of New York, and Gardner S. Williams of Ann Arbor, 

100 


Michigan. The report of the committee was adopted by the 
Council of the Institute March 7, 1923, and is as follows: 

Whereas, Under the present Immigration Law, there was a 
net gain for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1922 of only 
110,844 immigrants, of whom 76,106 were people of no occu¬ 
pation, including women and children; and 

Whereas, There was a net loss of 67,332 laborers, chiefly 
Italians, Poles, Spaniards and Portuguese; and 

Whereas, If the percentage allowed under the Immigration 
Law had been applied to the net immigration, instead of the 
gross, there would have been a gain of 41,154 Italians, instead 
of a loss of 12,856, with a corresponding gain in other desir¬ 
able nationalities that showed a loss; and 

Whereas, The doubling of the percentage would show, based 
on figures of 1922, a net gain of only one-fourth of the annual 
net gain for the ten years prior to 1914; and 

Whereas, There is a great scarcity of labor in this country, 
therefore be it 

Resolved, That the American Institute of Consulting En¬ 
gineers recommends that the present Immigration Law be 
changed so that the percentage of immigrants allowed from 
each nation be applied to net immigration, instead of gross; 
and be it 

Resolved, That the three per cent allowed under the present 
law be changed to six per cent; and be it 

Resolved, That the applications of immigrants be verified 
before a consular officer of the United States as provided in 
the immigration bills recently introduced in the Senate and 
in the House of Representatives, viz.: S. 4092 and H. R. 
14273; and be it 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each 
member of the Institute, with the request that he transmit 
a copy to his Representative in the House of Representatives 
and to the Senator from his state; and that copies also be 
sent to the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the 
Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, and to such 
other bodies as the Council of the Institute may designate. 

Since this report was made, the immigration statistics for the 
fiscal year ended June 30, 1923 have become available, and it is 
believed that a study of the data contained therein will confirm 
the conclusions arrived at by the committee nine months ago. 

The Bureau of Immigration, in its statistics, has divided im¬ 
migrant and emigrant aliens according to “Race and People,” 
“Countries” and “Occupation.” Taking the statistics of “Race 
and People,” and combining them into northern Europeans 

101 


and southern Europeans, we have the following results, bearing 
in mind that most of the French, and many of the English and 
Scotch, came from Canada: 


IMMIGRATION STATISTICS FOR FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30 , 1923 , 
BY NORTHERN EUROPEAN PEOPLES 


Race or People 

Immigrant 

Emigrant 

Net Increase 

English. 

60,524 

7,979 

52,545 



Scotch. 

38,627 

1,129 

37,498 



Irish. .. 

30,386 

1,511 

28,875 



Welsh. 

1,622 

66 

1,556 

120,474 







50.6% 

German. 

65,543 

2,217 

63,326 


of 

Scandinavian. 

37,630 

2,936 

34,694 


total 

Dutch and Flemish. 

5,804 

1,252 

4,552 

102,572. 


French. 

34,371 

1,896 

32,475 

32,475 


Czechs and Slovaks. 

11,767 

2,103 

9,664 



Polish. 

13,210 

5,278 

7,932 



Magyar. 

6,932 

1,039 

5,883 

23,479 


Russian. 

4,346 

1,611 

2,735 



Finnish. 

3,087 

445 

2,642 



Ruthenian and Lithuanian... 

2,996 

1,138 

1,858 

7,235 


Northern Europeans. 

316,835 

30,600 

286,235 

286,235 


It will be noted that the French have been included • as 
northern Europeans, inasmuch as the original immigration to 
Canada was from the northwestern part of France. 

The southern Europeans (which for convenience include 
Turks and Syrians) were divided as follows: 


IMMIGRATION STATISTICS FOR FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30 , 1923 , 
BY SOUTHERN EUROPEAN PEOPLES 


Race or People 

Immigrant 

Emigrant 

Net Increase 

Italians. 

48,280 

6,627 

5,574 

2,396 

1,444 

6,327 

23,567 

2,298 

4,158 

69 

775 

5,914 

24,713 

4,329 

1,416 

2,327 

669 

413 

24,713 

5,745 

Bulgarians and Jugo-Slavians. 

Greeks and Roumanians. 

Armenian. 

Syrians and Turks. 

Spanish and Portuguese. 

Southern Europeans. 

2,996 

413 

70,648 

36,781 

33,867 

33,867 


102 




















































The division by “Countries” is as follows: 


Country 

Immigrant 

Emigrant 

Net 

Increase 

Per Cent 
Net 

Europe. 

307,920 

117,011 

63,768 

19,193 

13,705 

1,322 

61,656 

2,775 

2,660 

6,180 

7,593 

586 

246,264 

114,236 

61,108 

13,013 

6,112 

736 

55.8 

2.9 

1.4 

.2 

British North America. 

Mexico. 

Latin America (except Mexico)... . 
Asia. 

Australasia, Africa, etc. 

522,919 

81,450 

441,469 

100.0 


A summary of the total immigration and emigration for the 
fiscal year June 30, 1923, divided according to “Race or People,” 
is as follows: 


Race or People 

Immigrant 

Emigrant 

Net 

Increase 

Per Cent 
Net 

Northern Europeans. 

316,835 

30,600 

286,235 

64.81 


Mexicans. 

62,709 

2,479 

60,230 

13.6 

89.6 

Hebrews. 

49,719 

413 

49,306 

11.2 


Southern Europeans. 

70,648 

36,781 

33,867 

7.7 


Africans (Black). 

7,554 

1,525 

6,029 

1.4 


Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, E. 
Indians. 

9,986 

6,800 

3,186 

.7 


Latin Americans, except Mexicans. 

4,804 

2,538 

2,266 

.5 


Miscellaneous. 

664 

314 

350 

.1 


Grand total. 

522,919 

81,450 

441,469 

100.0 



These figures show that northern Europeans constituted 
65% of the net immigration and southern Europeans less than 
8%, of which the Italians furnished three-quarters, or about 
25,000. This is a better showing than for the previous fiscal 
year, when 12,856 more Italians left the country than entered. 
As the Italian immigrants are among the best and most thrifty of 
our laboring class, the labor situation would be much improved 
if the quota would apply to net immigration rather than to 
gross. If this had been the case in 1922, the net Italian immi¬ 
gration would have been greater by 54,010, in 1923 by 23,567; 
and the net Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigration (all 
excellent laborers) would have been greater, in 1923 by 5,278, 
3,193 and 2,721 respectively. 

On the other hand, the adoption of the net quota would, add 
very few of the non-laboring class. For instance, such a change 
in the law would have added, in 1923, only 413 Hebrews and 

103 





































69 Armenians. The statistics of the past year show that it is 
the laborer who returns to his home, and not the trader; and it 
is the former that our country needs just now, particularly as 
during the past ten years more laborers have left the country 
than have entered. For the fiscal year 1922, the statistics 
showed a net loss of 67,332 laborers, and in 1923 a net gain of 
only 50,640, as will be noted in the following division according 
to ‘‘Occupation”: 


Occupation 

Immigrant 

Emigrant 

Net 

Increase 

Per Cent 

Professional. 

16,542 

2,537 

14,005 

3.2 

Skilled laborers... 

106,213 

8,281 

97,932 

22.2 

Farmers. 

12,503 

1,705 

10,798 

2.4 

Farm laborers. 

25,905 

943 

24,962 

5.7 

Laborers. 

83,552 

32,912 

50,640 

11.5 

Servants. 

52,223 

3,507 

48,716 

11.0 

Miscellaneous. 

34,396 

6,325 

28,071 

6.3 

No occupation (including women 
and children). 

191,585 

25,240 

166,345 

37.7 


522,919 

81,450 

441,469 

100.0 

Male. 

307,522 

54,752 

252,770 

57.3 

Female. 

215,397 

26,698 

188,699 

42.7 


That our labor leaders need not worry over the influx of for¬ 
eign labor under the present immigration law is indicated by 
the figures given above, which show that 43% of our immi¬ 
grants are females, and that 38% of the total are persons of no 
occupation, including women and children. Only 11.5% are 
classed as laborers, 5.7% as farm laborers and 22.2% as skilled 
laborers, including clerks, accountants, milliners and dress¬ 
makers. 

These figures clearly indicate that the present quota could be 
doubled without harming our present labor interests; and in fact 
it is essential that immigration be increased in order that our 
country's development may proceed at the prewar rate. For 
the ten years prior to the war, the gross immigration averaged 
over a million per year, and the net somewhat less. After ten 
years of war and its aftermath, under greatly reduced immigra¬ 
tion, our country can now absorb certainly as many immigrants 
as it did in the prewar days. A doubling of present quota to 
6% would produce somewhat more than a million gross and 
somewhat under a million net, a number clearly within the 

104 

























assimilative power of our nation, less than 1% of our total 
population. 

It is not recommended that the basis of the quota be changed 
from the census of 1910, inasmuch as the results of the fiscal 
year 1923 show such a preponderance of northern Europeans; 
and it would be unfortunate to cut down the southern Euro¬ 
peans any further, as would be the case under the census of 
1890, since they are so greatly needed in the field of labor. 
Besides, our present mixture of peoples is a homogeneous one, 
as the war demonstrated; for none of our allies was more united 
in the prosecution of the war than was our own country, not¬ 
withstanding the diversity of its people in race and religion. 
In fact, unity of race and religion does not necessarily mean 
unity of thought and action, for the inhabitants of the Irish 
Free State, having the same race and religion, are anything but 
united on questions of state policy. 

The program for immigration just outlined, while it would 
benefit the country as a whole, would be of particular advantage 
to the farmers, who must now pay high wages, due to scarcity of 
labor, in the production of their crops, which they must sell in 
competition with the cheap labor of Europe, South America 
and Australia. In turn, the farmers must pay high prices for 
everything they buy, including transportation on account of 
the high wages paid by the manufacturers and railroads. In¬ 
creased immigration would also afford the farmers a greater 
market for their products in our own country. Had immigra¬ 
tion continued during the past ten years as it was during the 
ten years prior to the war, there would be nearly ten million 
more people in this country to consume our farm products. 

Next to tax reduction, it is doubtful if Congress could adopt 
any policy which would be of greater benefit to the farmer in 
particular, and to the country in general, than to bring back 
immigration to its prewar figures—not wholly unrestricted, 
but limited by a 6% quota, applied to net immigration, and 
based on the census of 1910. 

Mr. Max J. Kohler , representing the Baron de Hirsch Fund. 

Mr. Max J. Kohler: In connection with the 3% quota 
limitation, adopted by Congress in 1921, we ought to bear in 
mind the fact that a subsequent independent law, enacted in 
September, 1922, the so-called Cable Equal Citizenship Act, 

105 


itself calls for an enlargement of the quota, because of its un¬ 
anticipated modification of the workings of the Immigration 
Act. It gave American women independent citizenship, and 
changed the law so that thereafter a married woman did not 
become an American citizen by reason of her husband’s natural¬ 
ization, as theretofore, though married when it went into effect. 

Previous thereto, when a man became naturalized here, his 
wife abroad—whom he had so often preceded to the United 
States in order to establish a home here before sending for wife 
and minor children —ipso facto also became a citizen, and could 
enter independently of any restrictions in immigration laws, 
which were inapplicable to citizens. 

Suddenly, without any discussion or reference in congressional 
reports or debates to the bearings of this measure on the immi¬ 
gration laws, the wives abroad of residents of the United States 
becoming naturalized here after September, 1922 ceased to be¬ 
come citizens, and were aliens, and could come over here only 
within the narrow limits of the quota. Young children are com¬ 
monly dependent on the mother’s care, and remained abroad 
with her, and we suddenly were confronted with the situation 
that many thousands of wives and children of American resi¬ 
dents were cut off abroad, far in excess of the quota percentages, 
and cannot for years under the present quotas join their hus¬ 
bands or fathers here. The terrible economic and other dis¬ 
turbing conditions abroad have enormously aggravated this 
cruel hardship. 

How many scores or hundreds of thousands of foreign wives 
are involved, no one can say. We know that the Federal Immi¬ 
gration Commission in 1910 reported that 22.7% of the foreign- 
born married men here had their wives abroad, this calculation, 
however, being based on inquiries put to only about 150,000 
foreign-born married men engaged here in manufacturing and 
mining. 1 In 1920 there were over two and a quarter million 
alien foreign-born males of voting age in this country, so it 
would seem that hundreds of thousands of women are still 
abroad unable to join their husbands, residing in the United 
States. 

Naturally, ordinary humanity demands that such conditions 
should be relieved, and this situation applies even to wives of 
many who have since September, 1922 become citizens of the 

Yol. I, pp. 459-60. 


106 


United States. Reports constantly come in of thousands of 
married women abroad, clamoring to be permitted to come to 
the United States with their children to join resident husbands 
here. Comparatively few of these male residents are “birds of 
passage,” for economic necessity commonly dictated that the 
husband—with less than $20 on the average in his possession— 
should precede wife and children to establish a home here for 
them first, and not handicap himself and them by bringing 
them over prematurely, especially as he may not secure a posi¬ 
tion before coming over himself. Nor is it at all true—even if 
it were relevant—that this is the husbands’ own fault. When 
they came over here, we had no such laws, which they could have 
anticipated, but, on the contrary, a recent change in our laws 
is responsible for their plight. Moreover, in coming over here, 
the males sought economic improvement for wife and child, and 
not merely for themselves, and often were driven here by re¬ 
ligious and political persecution. Naturally, therefore, the 
quotas ought to be enlarged, so as to permit such reunions of 
families. 

It is true that the quota law itself, within narrow limits, gives 
a preference to wives and children of residents and certain other 
near relatives, and our officials are thereby constrained to prefer 
such applicants, though doubtless they would of their own 
accord pay some such heed to the dictates of ordinary humanity. 
The result is, however, that as to many of the countries, the 
quotas are almost entirely filled by dependent wives and chil¬ 
dren, and the economic needs for male labor are in consequence 
largely neglected. To this circumstance is largely due the fact 
that, particularly as to the “new immigrants,” little material 
is supplied by the incoming masses for immediate labor supplies. 
It is such newer arrivals, of course, who is most apt still to have 
wife and child coming over from abroad, to join him here. One 
consequence is that we are apt to draw entirely erroneous views 
as to the economic value of the average “new immigrants,” 
now arriving, and to treat these abnormal conditions as “nor¬ 
mal”; hence the origin of much of the demand for “selected” or 
“economically selected immigration,” to meet conditions which 
will right themselves, when the bulk of these families have been 
re-united. Another consequence is the perfectly legitimate 
demand, voiced by the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
for instance, that besides the present quota, to be made up 

107 


chiefly of dependent near relatives of resident aliens, an addi¬ 
tional quota be established, to be made up of “selected immi¬ 
grants,” to be chosen on the basis of present economic needs. 
Still better would it be, to take wives and children of alien 
residents entirely outside the quota limits, if national quotas 
we must still have. 

But there are grave objections to this entire scheme of fixing 
quotas on national lines. To establish such racial tests is at 
variance with fundamental American principles, beginning 
with the Declaration of Independence statement: “All men are 
created free and equal.” It is also absolutely at variance with 
treaty faith, for we have treaties with many countries, according 
to their subjects free right to come over to reside here, and still 
others, adopting such provisions through clauses conferring 
upon them all the rights of the most favored nation. Somehow 
or other the fact is hidden from the public that a number of the 
leading European countries have protested against the quota 
law as a violation of treaty, such as England, Italy, Greece and 
Spain. 

No country today desires to quarrel with us on such issue, and 
Congress is thus enabled to override treaties with impunity. 
As a later law overrides an earlier treaty, Congress can thus 
reduce treaties to “scraps of paper,” and violate treaty faith. 
In the Japanese Immigrant Case 1 the United States Supreme 
Court held that such treaties are not violated by laws excluding 
the criminal, the diseased and the pauper, but its intimations 
were that this principle did not apply to arbitrary restrictions, 
such as quota laws are, establishing different arbitrary figures 
for different countries. Of course, the more arbitrary the re¬ 
striction or quota, the more offensive is the violation of treaty 
faith and unfairness involved. For this, among many reasons, 
the scheme is very objectionable to go back arbitrarily to some 
earlier census, like that of 1890, for the avowed purpose of re¬ 
ducing the quotas from the countries of Southern and Eastern 
Europe, and preferring certain other countries. 

This whole idea of relative race values is objectionable, un¬ 
reasonable and grossly offensive. It is not science, but pseudo¬ 
science.. Ever since Edmund Burke’s famous saying, it has been 
recognized that you cannot draw an indictment against a whole 
nation ! All sorts of factors enter into play, and often an alien 

*189 U. S. 86 at 97 


108 


most desirable from one point of view, is least so from another. 
Nor will men agree as to the desirability of particular persons. 
While, for instance, the illiterate alien is less desirable than the 
literate for purposes of citizenship, we particularly need the 
illiterate alien for farm labor and digging our subways, for in¬ 
stance, and literate men will not willingly engage here in such 
pursuits, nor will our native-born in general. One marked result 
of the illiteracy test in our immigration laws, for instance, was 
the enormous fall in the percentage of farm 'laborers coming 
over here, even before the enactment of the quota law. In 
connection with these attempted relative race valuations, let 
me call attention to what the leading American philosopher, next 
to Emerson, has said on the point. I refer to Professor Royce, 
formerly of Harvard, who, in writing on “Race Questions and 
Prejudices,” pointed out that we first permit our prejudices to 
give names and classifications to race distinctions, and then 
worship these fetishes because we have given them scientific 
names and terminology. He said that 

“such trained hatreds are peculiarly pathetic and peculiarly 
deceitful, because they combine in such a subtle way the 
elemental vehemence of the hatred that a child may feel for 
a stranger, or a cat for a dog, with the appearance of dignity 
and solemnity, and even of duty, which a name gives. But 
what we can do about them is to try not to be fooled by 
them, not to take them too seriously because of their mere 
name.” 

Moreover, the wide-scaled investigations conducted by Pro¬ 
fessor Boas for the Immigration Commission showed that race 
distinctions over here are so temporary and ephemeral, that 
even such stubborn differentiations as typical racial shapes of 
skulls change here markedly, thanks to our American environ¬ 
ment, climate and food, so that the average skull of the South 
Italian and Russian Jewish immigrant in the second generation 
here varies widely in inverse ratio from that of their foreign- 
born progenitors. 

Similarly Bryce in his “American Commonwealth,” (particu¬ 
larly in the last edition) ably treated the pronounced modifica¬ 
tion wrought here in the inherited racial traits of the European 
immigrants, and concluded his remarks about the “immense 
assimilative potency of the environment” of America as follows : 

“Never before did less advanced races come into a country 
and people which possessed a like capacity for permeating 
newcomers with its ways of thinking, its taste, its habits of 

109 


life....The schools, the newspapers, the political institu¬ 
tions, the methods of business, the social usages, the general 
spirit in which things are done, all grasp and mould and 
remake a newcomer from the first day of his arrival and turn 
him out an American far more quickly and more completely 
than the like influences transform a stranger into a citizen in 
any other country... .His transformation is all the swifter 
and more thorough because it is a willing transformation.” 

The objection to racial lines in immigration was never more 
ably stated than by President Roosevelt in his memorable 
Presidential Message of 1906 as follows: 

“Not only must we treat all nations fairly, but we must 
treat with justice and good will all immigrants who come here 
under the law. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant, 

Jew or Gentile; whether they come from England or Ger¬ 
many, Russia, Japan, or Italy, matters nothing. All we have 
a right to question is the man’s conduct. If he is honest and 
upright in his dealings with his neighbor and with the State, 
then he is entitled to respect and good treatment. Especially 
do we need to remember our duty to the stranger within our 
gates. It is a sure mark of a low civilization, a low morality, 
to abuse or discriminate against or in any way humiliate such 
stranger who has come here lawfully and who is conducting 
himself properly. To remember this is incumbent on every 
American citizen, and it is of course peculiarly incumbent on 
every Government official, whether of the nation or of the 
several States.” 

Mr. John M. Hartley , representing the Retail Bakers } Association of 

America. 

Mr. John M. Hartley: I wish to state first that I am con¬ 
vinced that we should change the datum line and the quota 
from 1910 to 1890. I have a lot of feelings in this thing, and I 
feel very much for the people who have spoken today on the 
other side. I am secretary of a group of bakers, 80 to 85% of 
whom are Germanic. I have worked with them clean through 
the war, and before we went to war, so you must understand 
that somehow or other I have arrived at the point where I can 
compromise as an American. It strikes me, however, that these 
people who labor in this Americanization work and have to take 
care of their nationals, should have a rest and should have an 
opportunity to take what they have and merge them into this 
nation, without this considerable influx of others year after year. 

When you figure back, who built this country—natives ? 
There weren’t very many in the beginning that did any building. 
It has been built by immigrants. The immigrants have justified 
themselves, but are justifying themselves decreasingly, so we 

110 


are running into the economic law of diminishing returns or 
diminishing values. I am willing to admit that the immigrants 
that came before me bore a greater burden than I have borne. 
But I do say that the one who came ten years ago and he who 
came last year stepped into something that they had not cre¬ 
ated, and something of a higher value than I stepped into, or 
any of you men who came here fifty years ago. Now, if we have 
built values in this country that are worth something, then we 
also naturally have a right to select and say who shall step in 
as partners. Immigrants have justified themselves, and I want 
to tell you that immigrants from that Nordic race, the northern 
European people that came here before 1910, built up our West, 
blocked off the waste spaces in the unsettled places, were not 
afraid of that which is difficult. They went out alone on 160 
acres and stuck to it. The trouble is that those who come 
from the other races have a hereditary instinct to commune to¬ 
gether, and it is hard for them to mix with us. Their blood may 
be just as good, but is it not a little different ? We will do them, 
in the long run, no good; they will do us no good. They do 
interfere with our political institutions. I wouldn’t bet any 
man here a dollar that the immigration law will go through 
again, because I know too many politicians who will kick to 
beat the cars and too few Americans who will stand up for their 
own point. 

Mr. Isaac A. Hourwich , representing the New York Council of the 
American Jewish Congress. 

Mr. Isaac A. Hourwich: The organization which I repre¬ 
sent here is a central body, combining all the Jewish organiza¬ 
tions of this country. 

On the first question: “Shall the percentage be changed ?” I 
certainly don’t see any holiness about the 3%. It was an abso¬ 
lutely unscientific guess. There is no reason why there should 
be 3% rather than 33% or no per cent at all. If immigration is 
an evil, then 3% is just 3% too many. If immigration is not 
an evil, then some scientific basis ought to be found to figure 
out the number of immigrants which this country needs; and 
3% does not represent that number. 

“Shall the census year on which the percentage is based be 
changed ?” The idea is that the census year should be changed 
to 1890. The underlying thought is simply race discrimination. 

Ill 


Is it American to discriminate against races ? One of the 
fundamental ideas of Americanism is that every resident of the 
United States is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happi¬ 
ness. Now, what kind of a pursuit of happiness is there when a 
man comes to this country in order to build a home for his wife 
and children, or to bring his parents over here, and then he is 
told: “No, you cannot do it ?” This is certainly contrary to 
the fundamental principle of Americanism. 

It has been said here: “Why have they separated ? That was 
their own doing.” But if you will look over the statistical census 
volumes on population, you will find that there are millions of 
Americans who reside in states other than the states of their 
birth. That means that millions of Americans left their states, 
say, left Missouri and went to New York. Is that reprehensible ? 
They left Missouri not in order to part from their families but 
in order to look for better opportunities in New York, and when 
they came to New York, they took their wives and their children 
and their parents, and also their brothers possibly, not even 
minor brothers, but brothers who were of full age. A great deal 
is said about the brotherhood of man, but when it comes to 
fixing the immigration law, we forget that there is such a thing 
as brotherhood. Brothers are excluded from the number of 
relatives. 

This principle of discrimination against one kind of races, the 
southern and eastern Europeans, and favoring of other races, 
the Nordics, is contrary to the principles of Americanism. We 
are here precisely in the same position as the Armenians. I 
will speak of it later under paragraph “e,” but I want to say 
this: If it comes to discrimination, I, speaking for the Jews, 
will recall the phrase of one of their heroes, Disraeli, who says 
that at the time when your ancestors were wearing skins, we 
gave a religion to the world. After all, religion is one of the 
most potent factors in our civilization, and you are all by re¬ 
ligion Jews, because you have a Jewish religion. Christianity 
is a Jewish religion; don’t forget it. 

Now we come to the question of, let us say, the strength of 
the race. I will say that if you have a race which for 2,000 years 
stood faithful to its ideals, to its religion, amidst persecution, 
and has survived 2,000 years of persecution, certainly here is a 
case of survival of the fittest, and certainly we can say proudly 

112 


that our race is equal to any race that has been a part of the 
make-up of the American people. 

Now as to question “c”: “Shall the percentage be made to 
depend on the number of aliens of each nationality group resi¬ 
dent in the United States or on the total population in the 
United States ?” We certainly see no reason why it should be 
made to depend upon each nationality. We are opposed to this 
principle. We say that if you want to restrict immigration, 
restrict it upon some rational principle but not upon the prin¬ 
ciple of preference given to one race as against another race. 
These claims are, after all, contested. 

Now the last point I am going to touch upon is this question: 
“Shall other changes be made and, if so, what changes ?” One 
of the principles which was embodied in our immigration laws 
in the past was the principle that political and religious refugees 
should be treated in a different way from those who come here 
simply as immigrants. That principle was embodied years ago 
in the Immigration Act. 

I said a while ago that we, the Jews, are in the same class 
with the Armenians. Do you know that during the war about 
half a million Jews were deported from their homes ? Do you 
know that during the massacres in Southern Russia, 200,000 
people were massacred; whole towns were destroyed ? Do you 
know that there are about a million widows and orphans in 
Southern Russia, and those people have relatives here who are 
fully able to provide for them and make good citizens of them, 
and they are knocking at the doors of America ? It will be in 
keeping with the principles of Americanism, with the best tradi¬ 
tions of America, to make an exception in favor of those who 
can claim that they come here in order to escape persecution 
for religious or political reasons. 

Dr. Antonio Stella, Chairman of the Civic Policy Committee of the New 
York County Medical Association, and Consulting Physician of the 
Manhattan State Hospital. 

Dr. Antonio Stella: Dr. Hourwich has effectively, so to 
speak, unmasked the underlying cause of the bill recently pro¬ 
posed by Chairman Johnson, basing the national quotas on the 
number of foreign-born living in 1890 instead of those living in 
1910. That underlying cause is race discrimination, or rather 
an apprehension that the southern and eastern European immi¬ 
grants are socially inadequate, and they cannot mix with the 

113 


myth, I may say, of northern intelligence. I shall not dwell on 
this particular phasfe of the subject, but I should like to review 
that material work that has been practically the inspiration of 
this new legislation, that is a work entitled: “The Analysis of 
America’s Modern Melting Pot.” 

One of the most important matters to come before the present 
session of Congress is the enactment of a new immigration law. 
During the past two years the Committee on Immigration has 
sought information and advice on this subject from every pos¬ 
sible quarter. Under authority from Congress, extensive studies 
of various subjects which have a bearing on the immigration 
problem have been undertaken. The most important of these, 
a study relating to the social effects of immigration, has been 
published by the House Committee on Immigration and Na¬ 
turalization as part of its hearings during the third session of 
the 67th Congress. The report, entitled “Analysis of America’s 
Modern Melting Pot,” has been widely circulated and its find¬ 
ings are frequently quoted in public discussions of immigration 
problems. 

The method followed in the investigation was as follows: 

A survey was made of the inmates of state institutions for 
the care of defectives. It included the following types of de¬ 
fectives: feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, tuber¬ 
culous, blind, deaf, deformed and dependent. Under these 
heads the nativity of each inmate was noted. A percentage 
distribution of the population of the United States was then 
worked out, showing the proportion which the population of 
each nationality was of the total population. These percentages 
were taken as the theoretical quota which any given group 
might be expected to show in the returns from the institutions 
for defectives. To illustrate, the method assumes that if 14% 
of the total population are foreign-born, it may be expected 
that 14% of the inmates of insane asylums will be foreign-born. 
The same percentage holds for the feebleminded, tuberculous, 
blind and all other types of defectiveness. 

To the method itself no objection can be made, but in this 
investigation it produced some extraordinary results. Probably 
most worthy of note is a statistical demonstration that, as con¬ 
cerns nearly all forms of defectiveness, the negro race is superior 
to the white. The findings are stated for each nationality in 
terms of what the report calls “quota fulfillment.” One hundred 

114 


per cent of quota fulfillment means that the number of persons 
of a given nationality found in the institutions for defectives 
equals the number to be expected on the basis of the proportion 
of this nationality in the general population. A quota fulfill¬ 
ment of 120% means that the group of defectives exceeds the 
number expected by 20%; 80% quota fulfillment means that 
the group of defectives is 20% below the number expected. The 
quota fulfillment figures given in the report for negroes and for 
native whites are as follows: 


Type of 

Defectives 

Quota Fulfillment 

Negro 

Native White 

Feebleminded. 

16.32 

125.82 

Insane. 

52 49 

82.60 

Criminalistic. 

207.85 

12.16 

86.55 

Epileptic. 

118.71 

Tuberculous. 

39.85 

98.68 

Blind. 

5 49 

130.52 

Deaf. 

83.64 

119.25 

Deformed. 

16 67 

129 42 

Dependent. 

25.27 

103.48 



These figures indicate that among native whites feebleminded¬ 
ness is eight times as common as it is among negroes, epilepsy 
nearly ten times as common, and blindness twenty-four times 
as common. The tuberculosis rate is 148% higher among whites 
than among negroes, insanity 57% higher and deafness 43% 
higher. The number of deformed is nearly eight times as great, 
relatively, among native whites as among negroes, and white 
dependents, in proportion to population, outnumber negro de¬ 
pendents four to one. On only one count, crime, does the quota 
fulfillment of the negroes exceed that of the whites. 

The absurdity of these figures is obvious. The 1921 mor¬ 
tality statistics of the United States Census show a tuberculosis 
death rate of negroes of 244 per 100,000, against a rate of ap¬ 
proximately 86 per 100,000 for whites. That is, deaths from 
this disease are nearly three times more common among negroes 
than among whites, notwithstanding the findings of this study, 
which show a ratio of over two to one in favor of the negroes. 
Comprehensive census statistics for negroes in the northern 
states where adequate institutional care is provided, indicate 
that the insane rate among negroes is much higher than among 

115 


















whites. The result of the censuses of the blind made by the 
Census Bureau show that in 1910 the frequency of blindness 
among negroes was 55% greater, and in 1920, 25% greater, 
than among whites. Yet the study made for the Committee on 
Immigration reports that, relative to population, there are 
twenty-four times as many blind among native whites as there 
are among negroes. 

The low ratios for negroes are due to the fact that only a small 
proportion of the negro defectives are found in state institutions. 
In general, the states of the South, where most of the negroes 
live, make little provision for taking care of negro defectives 
unless such defectives are criminals. As the survey included 
only the negro defectives in state institutions, naturally the 
number reported for such types of defective as the feeble¬ 
minded, insane, epileptic, blind, etc., was far below the quotas 
based on the ratio of negro population to total population. 

Unfortunately, this defect in the data involves a great deal 
more than the ratios for negroes. The negro population is in¬ 
cluded in the grand total of population from which the expected 
quotas for all nationalities and groups are derived. As the data 
for negro defectives are of no value, for the reasons just stated, 
the totals for defectives are not comparable with the population 
totals. The inclusion of the negro group has resulted in lower 
theoretical quotas for the other groups, and a much higher quota 
fulfillment for the different types of defectiveness, than would 
be the case had the comparison included only those groups for 
which comparable figures are available. 

The sort of thing that has been done in this study may be 
simply illustrated by the example of a stock raiser who wishes 
to determine the tuberculosis rate in two herds of cattle, one on 
fenced pasture and the other on the range. He starts out by 
fixing the expected quotas for the herds on the basis of the pro¬ 
portion which the number in each herd is of the total number of 
cattle. He then makes a thorough examination of all of the 
cattle in the herd on pasture, but is able to test only a few cattle 
in the herd on the range. Assuming the rate to be the same in 
both herds, the number of tuberculous cattle in the herd on 
pasture will greatly exceed the expected quota based on the 
proportion which this herd is of the total, and the number of 
tuberculous cattle in the herd on the range will be far below the 
expected quota. 


116 


The result of this fundamental error in the study is to exag¬ 
gerate the ratios of quota fulfillment; in other words, to make 
everything look worse than it really is. Note, for example, the 
effect on the ratios for feeblemindedness. The quota fulfillment 
given for the foreign white stock is 114.76. That is, there were 
14.76% more feebleminded in this group than was to be expected 
from the population distribution. Excluding negroes from the 
comparison, the quota fulfillment is 104.32, or only 4.32% more 
than the expected quota and approximately 9% less than the 
quota fulfillment given in the report. 

It may be said that the elimination of the negro group, al¬ 
though it would change the ratios for the premaining groups, 
would not change the relation of these groups to each other. 
This view ignores the use that will be made and is being made 
of such figures. Members of Congress, officials of the Govern¬ 
ment and editors and magazine writers do not talk in such 
statistical terms as “quota fulfillment.” They convert this 
into the familiar percentages above or below a given point, 
which they and the public understand. In using the figures 
just quoted, they will not say that the quota fulfillment of the 
total foreign white stock in feeblemindedness is 114.76. They 
will say that the proportion of feebleminded among the foreign 
white stock is 14.76% above the proportion of native white 
stock in the population. The error in the quota fulfillment of 
feeblemindedness for the foreign white stock, due to the inclu¬ 
sion of the negro group in the population total, is the difference 
between 104.32 and 114.76, or approximately 10%. But in 
terms of the percentage above the expected quota, the figures 
are reduced to 4.32 and 14.76, with an error of 10.44 or approx¬ 
imately 240%. Thus, a relatively small error in the quota 
fulfillment (although one of over 10% affecting every ratio in 
the report cannot be so described), is enormously magnified 
when the percentages above and below the quota are used, as 
universally occurs in articles or speeches for public consumption. 
Furthermore, the size of the error is not constant, but varies 
with the size of the percentages above or below the quotas. 
For these reasons I have no hesitancy in saying that the errors 
in the report, due to the inclusion of the negro population, are 
so serious as to render it valueless as a source of information 
for use in public discussion. 


117 


The inclusion of the negro population in the comparisons has 
biased the results so that not a single ratio in the report can be 
taken as a reliable indication of the relative frequency of any 
type of defectiveness. Information from other sources raises 
the question, also, as to whether a large part of the basic data 
for the “native white—native parentage” group is truly repre¬ 
sentative. Comprehensive statistical proof is lacking, but such 
data as are available indicate that the returns from institutions 
for defectives in the South, where the great bulk of the white 
population is of native parentage, were, in relation to the popu¬ 
lation, too low. 

According to a “Directory of State Institutions for the De¬ 
fective, Dependent and Delinquent Classes,” published by 
the Census Bureau for the year 1916, only two of the states 
south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers and east of the Mississippi 
provided at that time institutional care for the feebleminded 
and only five for the tuberculous. There were no institutions 
in any of these states for the epileptic and the deformed. The 
average value of the plants, and the expenditure per inmate 
were low, while the average number of inmates per employee 
was high, in comparison with similar institutions in other parts 
of the county. These facts constitute presumptive evidence of 
what is really a matter of common knowledge, that, in general, 
the states in the South do not provide institutional care for de¬ 
fectives on any such scale as do the states of the North and West. 
The effect of this is to make a better showing for the “native 
white—native parentage” stock and a relatively poorer showing 
for the foreign-born and foreign white stock, the great bulk of 
which is found in the North and West. The data from the 
southern states are not representative as regards the negro 
population, and there is good reason to believe that this is also 
true, although in lesser degree, as regards the white population. 

It seems to have become the fashion to insult, not only our 
prospective immigrants, but also those who came to us in the 
past. A particularly flagrant instance of this kind is an article 
by a prominent official, published in a magazine of national cir¬ 
culation, within the last two weeks. It quotes statistics purport¬ 
ing to show that over 45% of our foreign-born population are of 
such inferior mentality that they should have been excluded 
from the country. These alleged statistical facts are taken from 
a statement made to the House Committee on Immigration 

118 


and Naturalization by the expert who conducted the Commit¬ 
tee’s study of social inadequacy. It is found on page 737 of the 
report I have been discussing. 

Briefly, the statement was that if it had been possible to have 
applied a mental test to the immigrants who are now in the 
United States, similar to that used in the army during the war 
for testing intelligence among drafted men, and to have excluded 
all those who were of “inferior” or “low average” intelligence, 
there would have been excluded 45.6% of the 13,920,692 foreign- 
born in this country, or 6,347,835 of the present alien population. 

The wide publicity given this statement explains how sensa¬ 
tional and reckless generalizations, from insufficient and de¬ 
fective evidence, are accepted by the public as proved facts. 
The scientists who conducted the intelligence tests in the army 
would be the first, I think, to reject the assumption that the 
group of foreign-born soldiers tested was representative of the 
foreign-born population, or that the results of the tests could 
be used as an index of intelligence for the population as a whole. 
Not only did the distribution of the men differ widely from the 
population distribution, but the number of men tested was en¬ 
tirely too small to justify the application of the ratings to the 
whole body of foreign-born. According to the last census the 
foreign-born in the United States numbered 13,920,692, while 
the number of men tested was 12,407, less than one-tenth of 
1% of the foreign-born population. What would be thoilght of 
an employer who could attempt to gauge the average intelligence 
of his workmen by testing one man in each 1,000 ? For some of 
the nationalities in the group of soldiers, the sample, compared 
with the population, was much smaller than this. In 1920 the 
foreign-born population of German birth was 1,915,864, while 
the number of German-born soldiers tested was 299, or less than 
two one-hundredths of 1 %, a ratio of one to 6,408. The Austrian 
group of soldiers numbered 301, against a total foreign-born 
Austrian population of 1,445,141, the sample representing slight¬ 
ly over one two-hundredths of 1%, or a ratio of one to 4,801. 

This method of statistical interpretation has the great ad¬ 
vantage of saving a lot of labor and expense, but it certainly is 
most mischievous and deceptive. Following the same pro¬ 
cedure, the average intelligence ratings of the million, more or 
less, school children in New York City could be determined by 
testing from 150 to 160 children. In Washington, where the 

119 


school enrollment is about 70,000, it would be necessary to test 
only 11 children. Why bother with intensive investigations 
such as the recent Coal Commission inquiry into the social and 
living conditions among coal miners, when we can find out all 
we need to know about these six to seven hundred thousand 
miners, including an accurate measure of their intelligence, by 
carefully examining not more than 110 men ? 

As before stated, the distribution by nationality of the group 
of foreign-born soldiers tested, differed widely from that 
of the foreign-born population. These discrepancies in dis¬ 
tribution resulted in very high weightings for some nation¬ 
alities which tested low, and very low weightings for others 
which tested high. Thus, the Italian group, which gave very 
poor results in the tests, represented nearly one-third of the 
total number of foreign-born soldiers tested, although in the 
corresponding population distribution the Italian group was 
less than 14%. The Germans ranked high in the tests, but only 
2.4% of the soldiers were of German birth, while the population 
distribution shows a percentage of 16.2 for this nationality. 
The Turks, who tested very low, have a weighting in the soldier 
group of nearly three and one-half times their weighting in the 
population. 

The effect on the average ratings was to give the foreign-born 
group, a rating considerably lower than it would have received 
had the distribution of the soldiers corresponded to that of the 
population. This implies no criticism of the tests or of the 
selection of men to be tested. It probably never occurred to the 
officers in charge of this work that the ratings might be utilized 
as a cheap and easy index of intelligence for the whole foreign- 
born population. 

Mr. Charles Pergler , of the National Alliance of American Czechoslovaks, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. Charles Pergler: The quota law is admittedly ar¬ 
bitrary and unscientific, and as such ultimately will have to go. 
I suppose that its justification lies in a condition which existed, 
or was thought to exist, toward the end of the war. It has at 
least one advantage, however. It has given rise to discussion 
of a question which is undoubtedly of vital importance, and as 
g contribution to that discussion, let me call your attention to 
pne thing, 


120 


There is an impression, I believe, even here, and certainly 
statements to that effect have appeared in the press, that im¬ 
migrant groups as a general proposition are all opposed to a 
restriction or limitation of immigration. Now I venture to say 
that that statement, to put it very mildly, is incorrect; but mv 
attention has been called tonight to an article in one of the 
leading magazines of the country, by a writer of foreign extrac¬ 
tion, (his name certainly sounds foreign) who says point-blank, 
for instance, that the foreign language press has opposed always 
and without exception restrictive legislation. Now I will simply 
state the facts. 

I happen to represent the Czecho-Slovaks. During the last 
year, I happened to write a number of articles myself, on the 
question of immigration, and every single one of these articles 
contained always explicitly the statement that we realized that 
there must be a restriction of immigration. So we have here an 
illustration of the prime requisite to any discussion; that is, real 
and actual knowledge and sufficient conscientiousness not to 
make statements which cannot be substantiated. 

Speaking of the quota itself, I wouldn’t make the statement, 
it being merely a temporary expedient, that immigration is 
either all evil or not at all good, and that it doesn’t make much 
difference in principle whether it is 3% evil or not. Government, 
after all, is a practical thing, and sometimes these problems are 
not so much always a question of principle as a matter of degree. 
But there are other objections to the quota law which illus¬ 
trate why ultimately it is a thing that cannot be maintained. 
For instance, in showing you the arbitrariness of the thing and 
how unscientific and contrary to facts it is, if you will look at 
that map, you will see a map of new Europe, and you will see 
there a number of new states which did not exist at the time the 
quota law was adopted. For instance, the quota of a number 
of the Central European countries is reduced by reason of the 
fact that prior to the war a good many of them, contrary to their 
will, contrary to their wishes, figured in the census as Austrians. 
Now, that is a situation that ultimately will have to be remedied. 

Another illustration—and here we are coming to a matter 
which is perhaps even more important—there has developed here 
the discussion as to the question of race. Judging by what one 
of the preceding speakers said—and I believe that there is at 
least a modicum of truth in it—the real reason for the attempts 

121 


to go back to the census of 1890 is an attempt to exclude (now 
let us be frank and let us not resort to subterfuge) Jewish immi¬ 
gration. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Jews do not come here 
as Jews, but they come here as Poles, Russians, in many in¬ 
stances as Czechs. Wouldn’t that be mere subterfuge ? Of 
course, I will say this to our Jewish friends: That the question 
is hard of solution, and that they themselves, before it can be 
solved with any degree of fairness, will have to determine for 
themselves whether or not they are a nationality. It is a ques¬ 
tion of frequent agitation in Jewish circles. But I do agree with 
them that this attempt to differentiate and to discriminate be¬ 
tween nationalities is unfortunate. Dr. Osborn touched upon 
it this morning. We all recognize, of course, that certain funda¬ 
mental racial divisions must be recognized—the Asiatics, the 
negroes and the whites, and so forth—but when you go beyond 
that you are indulging in refinements which are exceedingly 
dangerous, to say the very least. 

As an illustration of that, people talk so much of the Nordic 
races. Scientifically, it is merely a theory, and no more than 
that. For instance, such writers as Dr. Madison Grant, sup¬ 
ported only in a recent number of the Atlantic Monthly by Dr. 
Vernon Kellogg, maintained that it is absolutely incorrect and 
that there is no such thing as pure, unmixed nationality; and I 
believe that he showed that even the Nordic races, and particu¬ 
larly the Scandinavians, are as mixed as any other nationality. 

You take our own race. Because of the admitted capacity 
of our people for self-government and the very low percentage of 
illiteracy, an attempt frequently is made to class us as a Nordic 
race. Well, we are grateful for the compliment, but we are not 
a Nordic race, we are Slavs, and we are not ashamed of it. How¬ 
ever, that attempt is being made. On the other hand, you have 
the Jugo-Slavs who, for historical and other reasons, didn’t have 
the same opportunities to develop; they are of the same 
race; they are Slavs. 

Don’t you see how impossible it is to draw such distinctions. 
The result is unfortunate, because among the foreign population 
an impression is growing up that there is an imputation of in¬ 
feriority, and they resent it, as people of reasonable human pride 
should resent it. 

No, you cannot base these propositions purely on the question 
of race. There will ultimately have to be a really selective sys- 

122 


tem. The only question that should be decisive is the question 
of individual capacity and personal soundness. 

Of course, it does present, and will present in the future, 
tremendous administrative problems. The resul.t is that all 
these efforts that are being made, all the legislation that we 
see and that will be attempted perhaps for the next few years, is 
simply in the nature of an experiment. We cannot arrive at any 
definite conclusions except on the basis of experience. But let 
us not go by anything else except by experience and admitted 
established facts, and not according to so-called science which 
today may have a vogue and tomorrow disappears. 

Mr. James A. Emery , of the National Association of Manufacturers. 

Mr. James A. Emery: The little I have to say on this point 
is in a representative capacity, and if I should fall into the use 
of the “I”, I trust you will realize it is editorial and not personal. 

I was very much impressed with the striking statements made 
by the distinguished physician here a moment ago, who reminds 
us, if we take to heart the illustration he has given, of the serious 
danger in pseudo-statistics, in relation particularly to this 
problem. 

I trust, too, that I may be pardoned if I revert to two closely 
connected phases of the discussion you have here; one referring 
to whether or not the present act, if continued, should have its 
quota system modified; the other whether or not any other ad¬ 
ministrative feature should be modified. The two are related 
intimately to each other. 

There is no disagreement that I know of, amongst representa¬ 
tive manufacturing organizations, nor has there been for years 
regarding the necessity for selective immigration. We are more 
concerned about the quality of the alien than about the volume 
of arrivals. But I think that there is one fundamental con¬ 
ception, under any quota system, that must be met, and that 
must be met under any system of administration, permanent 
or temporary, and that is that, as the family is the unit of social 
life, let no system of administration put asunder that which 
God has put together. 

Secondly, under any system of administration there is 
one fundamental difficulty, whether or not we are temporarily 
to proceed with the existing law while we undertake the formu¬ 
lation of a constructive system of selective immigration, and 

123 


that is that you cannot ascertain the future needs of the people 
of the United States, or what the necessity for supplementing 
their native labor supply may be. Therefore, any attempt to 
fix it in definite terms must be subjected to such administrative 
flexibility as will permit socially desirable immigrants, subject to 
your tests of admission, to be admitted under circumstances of 
demonstrated economic necessity; otherwise you seriously em¬ 
barrass, under any system of rigid and inflexible administration, 
the economic future of your own country. 

It has been said here, and agreed to generally, that we should 
seek examination at the source, but it has been suggested by the 
distinguished Assistant Secretary of Labor that many bills 
have been proposed for that purpose without realization that it 
cannot be done without the consent of foreign powers. That is 
fundamental; but what definite step has been taken to negotiate 
at this time and under these circumstances, the consent of other 
nations ? We work in accord with Canada. There is no reason 
why, in the suggestions made by Sir Auckland Geddes, we 
should not find a responsive ear in the British Isles. There is 
no reason why other nations should not join at this time if the 
Secretary of State were instructed and authorized to negotiate 
for the purpose of examination at ports of embarkation. More¬ 
over, it is quite possible, pending any such arrangement to be 
made, that we can at least alleviate many of the ills that sur¬ 
round the retention of the immigrant in stations at points of 
embarkation while examination proceeds under expense, in¬ 
convenience, and much distress. 

Every ship of American registry can be provided, under our 
law, with examining officials who can examine immigrants in 
transit and lessen the delay at the point of disembarkation. 
They have more extended opportunities under such circum¬ 
stances for the examination of patients en route than at Ellis 
Island or other points of debarkation. 

And, finally, I think it has been well said here that it is hardly 
worthy of this nation, in the determination of a quota system, 
if it is to continue one temporarily or permanently, to resort to 
an inexcusable subterfuge in order to find a basis of racial dis¬ 
crimination. To go back to 1890 is no more excusable than to 
go back to 1880 or 1870, or any other basis that is most 
favorable to the theory that is to be enforced by arbitrary dis¬ 
crimination to be employed under the guise of a census figure 

124 


for the purpose of evading treaty obligations. There is no 
doubt if such a thing is done it will immediately arouse the 
protest of every foreign nation affected, and it should be an 
effective protest, because it is plainly proven. 

Finally, in connection with this phase, this discussion has pro¬ 
ceeded on the supposition that we were really confronted with 
the question of whether or not the present quota act shall con¬ 
tinue temporarily or permanently. All those whom I represent 
are quite frankly opposed to the permanent continuation of 
the present quota system as the permanent immigration policy 
of the United States, because we feel, as I think even the dis¬ 
cussion you have had today demonstrates, that we are not yet 
aware of the effect of the operation of the quota system. It has 
not received that study which enables us to apply it with either 
sufficient flexibility of administration or sufficient scientific 
accuracy to make it a permanent part of the policy of the 
United States. 

If it is to be continued, it must be continued only as it was 
offered, as a temporary act, to protect us against certain pres¬ 
ently apprehended evils, until we have an opportunity to in¬ 
vestigate the information at hand and, either through a Con¬ 
gressional committee or commission, to undertake the con¬ 
structive formulation of a policy of selective immigration. 
Moreover, there is at the present moment no proposal pending 
before Congress for the continuation of the present 3% quota 
act. The only proposal of a responsible nature proposed by the 
chairman of the Committee on Immigration in the House, and 
sponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Rela¬ 
tions in the Senate, proposes a drastic reduction in the quota, 
which in gross would be from 357,000 to 187,000, and which, 
even with the base quota of 400 proposed in the original bill, 
but reduced to 200 in the present proposal, is accompanied by 
many changes in the direction of a still more drastic reduction 
of otherwise admissible aliens under the selective tests of the 
act of 1917. 

One of these is very fundamental because, as I say, I regard 
essential flexibility of administration as basic in any system 
that may be developed. The proposal that, when it is demon¬ 
strable that labor of like kind, unemployed, cannot be found in 
the United States, contracts may be entered into under regu¬ 
lated permission, to meet the demonstrated need, has been the 

125 


law for years, but the term “skilled labor” has been the limiting 
phrase in the law. In the pending proposal, that is changed to 
“highly skilled labor,” an ambitious but obviously limiting 
phrase. 

If such a phrase is left in the law, the flexibility of its admin¬ 
istration is diminished, or -its inflexibility is greatly increased 
according to the character of the administrator. That, I say, lies 
at the very foundation of any immigration system that may be 
established, and to which the economic necessities of a nation, 
subject always to its determined social tests, may require it to 
submit the operation of its industries and the conduct of its 
commerce. 

Dr. William H. Schliffer , representing the Taxpayers ’ Civic Welfare 
League of the Eastern District of Brooklyn, New York. 

Dr. William H. Schliffer: It is sometimes well for us to 
look at a subject of this kind from a civic standpoint. We have 
a very large civic society, including 140 other civic bodies, and 
we have certainly the opportunity of meeting various classes of 
people. We have the labor, the industrial class, and the pro¬ 
fessional class. I have had the experience, and I can testify to 
the effect that there is not so much want of the laboring class as 
has been talked about in this conference. There are many 
laboring men who are unemployed. In our Civic Leagues we 
find at least 20,000 men who have no employment, who are 
anxious to be employed. 

We are asked whether we agree with this 3% immigration 
law, or whether we disagree with it. Well, I don’t know; I can’t 
tell. Every law that is put forth by the Government is, so to 
speak, experimental. I think that these men who have the wel¬ 
fare of the nation at heart understand these things a great deal 
better than we who have perhaps a limited experience. We do 
not know; we cannot understand some of the movements of the 
Government; but I am certain that our government is based upon 
a good, sound foundation and that it will work out this problem 
a great deal better than we anticipate. 

It is true that there are a great many things that are distaste¬ 
ful to us. I have heard this evening and this morning a great 
deal said about race prejudice. In this country we need all sorts 
of races and men. They make a full nation; they bring to us 
certain qualities that we need as a nation, as an American 

126 


people, a cosmopolitan people. Let us not forget that in every 
nation, no matter how small or how large it may be, there are 
good qualities, and these qualities are essential to true Ameri¬ 
canism. We need them. 

Other departments of government are interested in this ques¬ 
tion and have made some sort of provision for it. We have 
established, in the City of New York, trade schools for 
immigrant boys; we are now endeavoring to establish trade 
schools for girls. It points in one direction. We see the need, 
the educational department sees the need, of having something 
that will supply the deficiency that we are complaining of. 

The educational department, of which I am a member, gives 
a great deal of consideration to the immigration law and to the 
industrial needs that we have at the present time. They are 
supplying that need. Our present administration is very much 
concerned about it. 

It does seem to me that we must look at the subject not only 
from the standpoint of the immigration law, as to whether this 
quota is sufficient or whether it is not right, or whether it dis¬ 
criminates against race, and all that. We are coming to con¬ 
sider that the American school system is the melting pot of all 
races, and we will bring out of all these various races that come 
here, whether it is a 3% quota or a 10% quota, those that will 
serve as hands and feet of the American people, and those who 
will serve as brains and chest of the whole human society. 

Mr. F. H. Kinnicutt , representing the Immigration Restriction League 
of New York. 

Mr. F. H. Kinnicutt: The Immigration Restriction League, 
Inc., of New York, founded in 1908, has a membership of over 
20,000 persons. It favors the enactment of the selective immi¬ 
gration bill recently introduced by Albert Johnson, Chairman 
of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the 
House of Representatives. This bill, H. R. 101, has been intro¬ 
duced in the Senate by Senator Lodge, as S. 35. It establishes, 
as the basis of immigration, national quotas of 2%, based on the 
census of 1890, with additional quotas of 2% for relatives of im¬ 
migrants already in this country. The bill also provides for the 
issuance abroad of certificates to immigrants coming within the 
quotas, so as to obviate the existing hardships arising from ar¬ 
rivals in excess of quotas, and introduces other changes curing 
defects in the administrative features of the present law. 

127 


The Immigration Restriction League has declared itself in 
favor of continuing the principle of quota percentage restriction 
contained in the present law, basing the quotas, however, upon 
an earlier census. At a meeting of the League, held on De¬ 
cember 22, 1922, it passed a resolution on this subject, which 
reads as follows: 

“Resolved, That the Immigration Restriction League favors 
the enactment by Congress of an amendment to the immigra¬ 
tion laws effecting a reduction in the immigration from 
southern and eastern Europe, which in the last fiscal year con¬ 
stituted 61 per cent of the total immigration under the per¬ 
centage-limit act of May 1, 1921, and amounted in actual 
numbers to 150,775, as compared with 91,862 from northern 
and western Europe. The League believes that the reduction 
referred to could best be accomplished by an amendment to 
the percentage-limit act providing that the quotas should be 
based on an earlier census than that of 1910, preferably on 
the census of 1890, and by fixing the percentage so that the 
total immigration from Europe permitted per annum should 
not exceed the total permitted at present.” 

The principle of quota percentage restriction is favored by 
President Coolidge in his recent message. In fact, he specifically 
approves the adoption of an earlier census for fixing the quotas, 
as the first of two alternative methods of strengthening the law, 
so as to obtain what he affirms the country at the present time 
stands in need of, namely, the selection and the limitation of im¬ 
migration. The Immigration Restriction League, Inc., rejoices 
in this recommendation of the President. The League also 
approves in general that part of his message which deals with 
the question of immigration, and particularly that passage in 
which he declares that “America must be kept American.” We 
take his meaning to be that the country must be protected from 
such immigration as, either by its quantity or its quality, would 
endanger the national quality of our American civilization, 
whether with respect to the character of the people themselves, 
or with respect to the nature of our institutions. 

The League has always felt that the enormous immigration 
in recent years, principally from the countries of southern and 
eastern Europe, which reached its climax in the years just pre¬ 
ceding the World War, was harmful to the country. Between 
the years 1900 and 1920 inclusive, 15,291,484 immigrants came 
into the United States, of whom only 2,101,131, or 20%, came 
from the countries of northern and western Europe. Nearly all 

128 


the remainder came from the countries of southern and eastern 
Europe. The latter immigration is what for many years has 
been known as the “newer” immigration, while the former is 
known as the “older” immigration. Up to the year 1882, the 
older immigration constituted by far the greater part of our 
immigration. Between the years 1882 and 1900, the total im¬ 
migration became nearly equally divided between the old and 
the new. Since 1900 the newer has constituted at least 70% 
of the total. 

The newer immigration comes from many races, dwelling in 
eastern and southern Europe, widely differing from each other, 
and also widely differing, both racially and culturally, from the 
basic stocks in the United States, which came from the British 
Isles, and to a small extent from Germany and Holland. The 
newer immigration also differs widely from the older immigra¬ 
tion, which came either from the same sources, or from the 
nearby countries in northern and western Europe, whose peoples 
were closely related, ethnologically, to our first settlers. The 
older immigration assimilated, on the whole, very well with the 
basic stocks, and without greatly endangering the racial homo¬ 
geneity of the American people. With respect to the newer 
immigration, the assimilation has been far less satisfactory. 
The report of the Roosevelt Immigration Commission, in 1910, 
showed that numerous foreign colonies, composed largely of the 
newer immigration, had grown up in many parts of the country, 
and were remaining quite separate and distinct from the Ameri¬ 
can population, especially in industrial centers and that many of 
these colonies retained their foreign identity, according to their 
respective nationalities, and to a large extent their foreign 
languages, customs and ways of living. The lapse of a decade 
has not altered this tendency, and experience seems to prove 
that, generally speaking, the races of southern and eastern 
Europe do not assimilate readily with the older stocks. More¬ 
over, in many instances, they show a distinct disinclination to 
abandon their national identity as people of a foreign country, 
and to become truly American. Their numbers are large, al¬ 
though not so large as is sometimes supposed. According to 
the census of 1920, there were then living in the United States 
6,600,018 persons who had been born in the countries of the 
new immigration. Altogether, nearly 12,000,000 of these peoples 
entered the country between 1870 and 1920, while since the 

129 


year 1908, when emigration statistics began, 2,132,387 of the 
same nationalities have departed. While there are no statistics 
to show the excess of births over deaths by nationalities, an esti¬ 
mate of 12,000,000 as the total number of those immigrants, 
together with their descendants, at the present time would 
probably be within the mark. This number would constitute 
about 11% of our total present population of approximately 
110,000,000. 

During the last fiscal year, our total immigration was 522,919. 
The immigration from the countries of southern and eastern 
Europe was 153,674, while that from the countries of northern 
and western Europe was 156,429. The balance of our total 
immigration was principally from Canada and Mexico, countries 
not covered by the quota law. 

The danger arising from the wide racial differences between 
the older American stocks and those of the new immigration 
has been recently pointed out by leading ethnologists. 

In two brilliant articles appearing in the World's Work for 
November and December, 1923, Professor Gino Speranza, who 
is himself an Italian by descent, stated that in his opinion the 
mixture of races in the United States since the new immigration 
began had already seriously endangered our civilization. He 
stated that a certain amount of racial homogeneity is necessary 
to any great civilization; that the fact that a strong and homo¬ 
geneous race can assimilate considerable foreign accretions, 
without being devitalized, does not prove that the process can 
be continued indefinitely. In his opinion the contrary is demon¬ 
strated by history, as for example in the case of the Greek and 
Roman civilizations. He stated that it is not at all a question of 
superiority of one race over another, but a matter of difference; 
that where one people shows a wide racial variance from another, 
the mixture through interbreeding, which is bound to take place 
sooner or later where the two occupy the same country, produces 
a hybrid race, weaker than either of the constituent races. He 
further pointed out that in the case of the United States, the 
country was settled, and its present civilization established, by a 
highly specialized race, tracing its origin to the same small region 
of Europe; that this race has developed in the course of centuries 
its own peculiar customs, modes of living, and forms of govern¬ 
ment, which together form the sources of our present civilization 
and government. 


130 


So long as the race which was responsible for establishing our 
American civilization and government retains in this country 
its strength and vigor, our chances of continuing the prosperity 
which has attended our earlier history are good, but if that 
race becomes weakened and disintegrated by the infusion of too 
much alien blood, the dire results which have followed such 
processes in other civilizations are almost inevitable. It follows, 
therefore, that there is very good reason for the provision in the 
pending bill which bases the quotas on the census of 1890. These 
quotas would allow a total immigration from Europe approxi¬ 
mately equal to the present immigration, one-half of the quotas 
being exclusively reserved for the relatives of immigrants already 
in the country. Northern and western Europe would be al¬ 
lowed approximately 83.3% of the total immigration from 
Europe, while southern and eastern Europe would be allowed 
12%. This latter percentage is approximately the same as the 
percentage of our total population represented by the newer 
immigration, which as already seen, is only approximately 
11%. Such an apportionment is far from being unfair or dis¬ 
criminatory, because it merely preserves, so far as immigration 
is concerned, the status quo in the United States with respect to 
the racial elements of which the population is at present com¬ 
posed. 

Assuming that proper care is taken in the selection of in¬ 
dividuals within the racial quotas, the majority of the immi¬ 
gration being related to the basic stocks, the effect would be to 
strengthen those stocks, and to increase the homogeneity and 
racial vigor of the American people as a whole. 

Mr. W. S. Hays , of the National Slate Association, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. W. S. Hays: I don’t believe, from all I have heard to¬ 
day, that we know exactly what should be the percentage or the 
quota that should be adopted. I think we should have some 
study made of this problem with regard to the economic needs 
of our various industries and of the country as they may run from 
year to year. Maybe this year in one industry we would need 
some people and next year we wouldn’t need any; so that the 
recommendations of the representative of the Department of 
Labor today, I think, were highly commendable. What we 
need, is simplicity and flexibility, in order that we may ad¬ 
equately meet the needs of the country. 

131 


“Shall the census year on which the percentage is based be 
changed ?” We don’t buy stocks on the basis of 1890; we don’t 
buy anything on the basis of thirty years ago. Why go back to 
thirty-year ago figures ? Why not deal in the latest census 
figures and deal rightly and straightforwardly with the facts, 
without any racial discrimination ? The question hinges largely 
on that, and it is a matter of scientific investigation. If it de¬ 
velops, for any reason, that those people coming from one sec¬ 
tion of the world are not otherwise admissible, naturally they 
would not be selected; but not because of any race. It would be 
strictly on a basis of the kind and character of people that we 
want in this country in our various lines of activity, and every 
one of them will be a credit to the United States, regardless of 
his race. 

The question “Shall quotas be based on net immigration ?” 
again is a matter of experience. I think that we all know that in 
the fiscal year which ended a year ago, that is, in June 30, 1922, 
immigration should have been based on net. I believe last 
year we had less than 6,000 net male immigrants. Again the 
question is what is the actual flux of immigrants in the year, 
deducting the emigration. 

Dr. Mordecai Soltes , representing the Jewish Council of 
Greater New York. 

Dr. Mordecai Soltes: I shall confine my remarks to the 
question dealing with the change in the year of census upon 
which the immigration quota is to be based. Inasmuch as this 
subject has been dealt with already, I will take the liberty of 
merely reading a few remarks in order to consume as little time 
as possible. However, before I come to this, I want to refer to a 
statement that was made by one of the previous speakers re¬ 
garding the articles which have been appearing in the World's 
Work. 

I have read both of these articles, in the first of which the 
author makes the point that, far from America Americanizing 
the aliens, the immigrants are alienizing America, and he offers 
as proof the simple statement that there exist in our country 
about two thousand foreign language newspapers. That, he 
claims, is sufficient proof of the fact that, far from Americanizing 
the immigrants, the immigrants are alienizing America. 

It has been my privilege, during the last two and a half years, 
132 


to write a doctor’s dissertation at Columbia University, in which 
I have analyzed the actual content of over 1,500 editorials which 
have appeared in the Yiddish language press of this city, during 
a period of six months chosen arbitrarily from different years 
in order to obtain a random sampling. This is not a book based 
upon opinion, it is a book which presents facts, statistics, and 
it proves conclusively that the Yiddish press, which is the only 
press I have studied objectively, does its utmost, through its 
editorials, to bring the immigrant Jewish reader nearer to 
America, in sentiment, thought and action. 

This shows that, when the author of the articles in the World's 
Work submits the statement that there are two thousand foreign 
language newspapers in support of his thesis, he does not present 
proof which would stand careful examination. 

Now, as far as the modification of the present bill and chang¬ 
ing the year of census from 1910 to 1890 are concerned, I believe 
that that would be a most vicious, a dangerous change, and be¬ 
lieve me, friends, I approach this problem not as a Jew, although 
I am proud to descend from this noted race, but I have en¬ 
deavored to consider this question from the general American 
point of view, and I repeat that the adoption of this clause would 
endanger the unity and solidarity of our Republic. 

I oppose this clause on the following grounds: 

(1) . It is discriminatory because it aims primarily to exclude 
certain racial types hailing from southern and eastern Europe. 

(2) . It casts a reflection, an unjustifiable slur, upon the de¬ 
sirability of millions of American citizens who were born in 
these sections of the European continent—an insult which is 
bound to provoke resentment and ill-feeling. 

(3) . It strikes at the very root of a fundamental principle 
of our government, i. e., “all men are created free and equal” 
and tends to establish cleavages in our democracy, by stamping 
certain groups of American citizens as inferior, regardless of the 
merits of the individuals composing such groups. 

(4) . It aims to adopt the principles which have guided us 
in framing the existing emergency immigration bill as the per¬ 
manent immigration policy of our government, without appoint¬ 
ing first a representative commission to conduct a thorough 
inquiry into the scientific value of the prevailing conceptions 
regarding the relative merits of the various groups. 

133 


President Coolidge suggests in his message two alternative 
methods for determining the desirability of immigrants to be 
admitted. First, on the basis of the percentage of each group 
who have become citizens and have manifested thereby their 
readiness and desire to become part and parcel of our Republic. 
I can conceive of that as a possible test. But the other alterna¬ 
tive—the place of birth, which is accidental—which would 
result from the modification of the year of census from 1910 to 
1890, can that be considered an adequate test ? Never! 

Our beloved America has spiritual interests at stake which in 
my estimation far outweigh our material interests. Since when 
has America become exclusively a land of materialism ? That is 
not the ideal America that I have known and cherished, the 
America of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. That is not the 
America that Woodrow Wilson portrayed, when he called all 
able-bodied young men to the colors several years ago. No ques¬ 
tions were asked then as to one’s race, creed or color, or as to 
what part of Europe one had been born in. Why ask such 
questions now ? 

The present immigration law, bad as it is from the adminis¬ 
trative point of view, is at least impartial. It is bad for all 
groups alike. It has made no distinctions between north and 
south, east or west. By modifying the year of census, we would 
set up one group against another. The germ of prejudice would 
contaminate our body politic. The “better than thou” attitude 
would prevail in our national life. 

I therefore plead with the legislators not to permit the menace 
of intolerance to poison the wells of public opinion. I would 
caution our representatives in Washington to proceed to their 
task with open minds, without malice or prejudice; to give at 
least as much consideration to the spiritual as we do to the 
material welfare of our glorious Republic. 

Above all, we must beware of deliberately giving official 
sanction to intolerance and narrow-mindedness. I fear that if 
the proposed change is put into effect, the immigration question 
might become an Italian, Russian, Slav, Greek and Jewish issue, 
a football of politics. The immigration question ought to be 
kept a purely American issue by avoiding discrimination. The 
provisions of the new bill must have a truly scientific basis, 
and must not be founded on mere assumptions, which in turn 
are frequently based on racial prejudice. 

134 


Mr. G. H. Topakyan, General Secretary of the United Armenian 
Immigration and Welfare Societies of America. 

Mr. George H. Topakyan: “Should the percentage be 
changed ?” Do not fool yourselves. We all know, every honest 
man and woman knows that percentage means nothing; it is a 
case of quality. If you need quantity, you can bring in as much 
as you like. 

It has been proven in the last three years that the greatest 
suffering and torture has occurred among all races as a result 
of this vicious law, and especially among the Armenians. Today 
we ask that the Armenians be given the same chance as any 
other immigrants, not by the 3 or 4%, but by any percentage of 
selective immigration so that this country may select on the 
other side such immigrants as they wish. I have heard some 
of the speakers say that a treaty must be entered into so as to 
make possible this examination abroad. That is not true. If 
we have any common sense, we know that no power on earth 
can tell our consuls to vise passports of immigrants in order 
that they may enter the United States, when those consuls 
know that their entering here would have a harmful effect. 
That in itself is selective immigration. No power on earth -can 
tell the United States, “We will give you a certain kind of im¬ 
migrant but not the other kind.” In some instances a steamer 
has arrived two seconds ahead of another one and the immi¬ 
grants thereon were not admitted. However, if, on the other 
side, we select our own immigrants before they are put on the 
steamer, they will be received when they arrive in the United 
States. 

My experience in the last ten years has shown clearly that all 
the technicality of the present law during these three years has 
proven beyond any doubt that it cannot possibly work without 
causing the greatest suffering to the immigrants coming to these 
shores. 

“Shall the percentage be made to depend on the number of 
aliens of each nationality group resident in the United States 
or on the total population in the United States ?” Perhaps my 
attitude on this question would appear to be selfish, but it is 
not as selfish as might appear at first glance. There will be a 
great opportunity to take the census of all races in America, 
thus affording a better chance to all of us and it will be more 
beneficial in every respect. 


135 


Mr. Hugh W. Adams , representing the Immigration Restriction League 
of New York. 

Mr. Hugh W. Adams: A great deal has been said at this 
conference concerning discrimination. Now I am opposed to 
discrimination, but the discrimination to which I am opposed is 
discrimination against our basic stocks, originally derived from 
the countries of northern and western Europe, and, until very 
recent times, steadily reinforced by the immigration of closely 
related stocks from the same regions. 

Many of the speakers who have been heard at this conference 
have spoken on behalf of certain racial groups first introduced 
into this country by the newer immigration, and have spoken 
solely as representatives of that newer immigration. Plainly 
their speeches have been prompted principally by the desire to 
bring over to this country more of the’r own races. They have 
expressed indignation that legislation should be proposed, de¬ 
signed to preserve the original stocks from submersion by these 
other races. Many of the representatives of racial groups have 
gone so far as to speak of an injustice which would be done to 
their particular races if large accretions to their respective 
races are not permitted to come to this country. The argument 
which they apparently advance is that merely by coming here 
with our consent they have acquired an inalienable right to let 
in more of their own races without our consent. These speakers 
have presented no argument whatsoever to show that such 
migration would in any way inure to the benefit of this country. 

I speak on behalf of those citizens descended from the basic 
stocks and the earlier immigration, which not only settled the 
country and won its independence, but established its institu¬ 
tions and have ever since maintained them. 

We believe that it is necessary to effect a material reduction 
in the newer immigration, which even under the present quota 
law is very large. This we believe is necessary not so much to 
do justice to our basic stocks and to our earlier immigration, as 
to protect our American life and institutions. We believe that 
our institutions cannot safely be entrusted to races which have 
not evolved them—races which in fact have evolved institutions 
of a quite different nature. 

If we are to speak of rights, it seems to me that those of us 
who are descendant of the founders of this country and of the 
earlier immigration so rapidly assimilated by the original basic 

136 


stocks, have not only as great but a greater right to be heard in 
this matter than the representatives of those races and nation¬ 
alities which more recently came to this country, after its govern¬ 
ment and institutions had been completely formed and firmly 
established, and then only by our consent. We owe our con¬ 
stitution, our institutions and language to the Anglo-Saxon 
stock which settled the country before the Revolution. This 
stock was supported by other racial elements of the population, 
relatively small in numbers, which had already come from 
Ireland, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia. 

The later immigration which came from Italy, from Russia, 
from Poland, from the Balkans, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, etc., 
has not brought with it the inherited principles, ideals, and 
methods of living peculiar to our older stocks. We must, there¬ 
fore, before letting down the bars of immigration, consider the 
effect on our established institutions of renewing the tremendous 
prewar immigration from southern and eastern Europe. 

It is a well-known fact that the later immigration to this 
country has proved to be chiefly industrial, and only to a very 
small extent agricultural, and the result of this fact is that the 
later immigration has tended to congregate in the larger cities 
of this country, such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and 
Boston. An examination will show that the socialistic opposi¬ 
tion to our institutions is centered largely in this foreign in¬ 
dustrial element. 

It has been stated at this conference that the registration 
figures do not always show that the largest proportional social¬ 
istic vote is found in those communities where recent immigra¬ 
tion is most numerous. The answer to this is, first, that one- 
half of the recent immigration is not naturalized, and, therefore, 
cannot vote at all, and second, that a large proportion of the 
extreme socialists no longer classify themselves as socialists, 
but call themselves “Communists” or “Syndicalists,” and enroll 
themselves under other emblems than those of the official 
Socialist Party. It is an incon estable fact that a great majority 
of the I. W. W., who are really syndicalists, and of the radical 
garment makers’ unions, which have openly expressed their 
approval of the Soviet Government of Russia, are persons of 
foreign birth, or of foreign parentage. 

The exposure last summer by our Federal Secret Service of a 
revolutionary Communist National Conferen e in Michigan, 

137 


attended by representatives from the great industrial centers, 
brought to light the fact that the principal leaders were foreign¬ 
ers of recent immigration, closely affiliated with the centers of 
Bolshevism in eastern Europe. In like manner the Herrin 
massacres, of which the whole country is rightly ashamed, took 
place in the midst of a foreign industrial colony. 

As for the remark made at this conference, that the center of 
the Non-Partisan League movement is found in districts where 
the Swedish and Norwegian immigration predominates, our 
answer is that this movement is attributable to discontent 
caused by peculiar agricultural conditions of a more or less local 
and temporary nature, aggravated by rapid deflation of prices 
since the World War—a discontent cleverly exploited by the 
insidious propaganda of the recently imported communistic 
element. 

In the light of these considerations, I believe our Congress will 
perform a patriotic duty by enacting the pending Johnson bill, 
which will restrict immigration along the lines of the present 
quota percentage law, fixing the quotas on an earlier census, as 
recommended by President Coolidge. This bill will select, as 
well as restrict, since, broadly speaking, it will afford us that 
selection in accordance with racial conditions which is essential 
to the welfare of the country. 

Mr. Herbert Treble , representing the National Clay Products Industries 
Association of Chicago , III. 

Mr. Herbert Treble: I wish to speak on the question of 
the Per Centum Limit Act, and its restrictions, in relation to its 
effect on industrial conditions in our country. 

While we sympathize with the various groups who wish that 
their countrymen and women be admitted to this country free 
of all restrictions, we are bound to consider not only the effect 
of immigration on our country as it applies to this year, or next 
year, but the effect on our country as it will be in future years, 
and we must have, as our first thought and motive, America’s 
welfare. 

There is much that has been said in favor of a change in the 
census year on which we should base our quota system. I am 
of Nordic descent, and immigrants of this race have played a 
great part in the building up of our country, yet today it seems 
to me our greatest need of the immigrant is to supply the de- 

138 


mand for common labor in our industries, and on our farms. 
People of Nordic descent have made wonderfully productive 
states from vast areas of practically unproductive prairie, and 
have proved efficient workers in our industries. 

Yet as one race has succeeded the other as the common labor 
supply of this country, I find today in our industries the common 
laborers are the Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Slavs, Austrians 
and kindred peoples. 

As our present need of immigrants in this country is for com¬ 
mon labor, I do not think we should make any change that 
would tend to exclude the people of those nationalities. Our 
need is workers, men with a sturdy constitution, willing to do 
the work we have for them to do. We do not need a high 
literacy test for these workers; the second generation of these 
people will be educated in our schools. 

Speaking on Question ‘‘a,” I believe the percentages hould be 
changed so as to admit to this country immigrants from those 
countries only that can supply us with the labor we need, re¬ 
gardless of other considerations. 

On Question “e,” I believe that provision should be made to 
lift the restrictions and admit to this country all the labor we 
need for our industries, and on our farms, when there is a short¬ 
age of such labor. 

The Secretaries of the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and 
Agriculture should have power to issue passports to our foreign 
consuls where the best available supply of the labor needed can 
be found, and after an examination of the immigrant to find 
out if he is willing and capable of doing the work required of 
him, the consul should give the immigrant a special passport 
which will admit him to this country, regardless of his country’s 
quota. He should on arrival be at once forwarded to the place 
where his services are in demand. 

When there is a shortage of labor, it is questionable if we ob¬ 
tain more than 10% of our immigrants who help supply this 
demand where the need is greatest. The system outlined above 
would give us 100% productive workers. 

Our one great thought in studying this most important prob¬ 
lem must be the consideration of America’s needs. 


139 


Dr. S. H. Abkarian , of the United Armenian Immigration and 
Welfare Societies. 

Dr. S. H. Abkarian: I have lived in the United States for 
twenty-three years, about twice as long as the other gentleman 
who spoke a short while ago. I married here and my children 
were born in this country. The grave of my soldier son is here, 
and I have worn a gold star with mingled sorrow and pride. 
I am an Armenian by birth. 

A restriction of the quota should not be made because the 
present restriction is small enough; and if carrying the year of 
census back to 1890 is going to cause a race discrimination, it is 
absolutely un-American. 

As the years go on, immigration is coming and a census ought 
to be taken from 1916, 1918 and 1920, year by year, if this law 
is going to operate permanently. But as we go on and find that 
a certain injustice is being done to a certain race or to certain 
nationalities, we should in an elastic manner adjust matters. 

As for the quality of the Armenians, I just want to give you 
one quotation of our ex-Ambassador to Germany, the late Mr. 
White. He said, if he were to be asked to name the most de¬ 
sirable races to be added by immigration to the American popu¬ 
lation, he would name among the very first the Armenians. 

Such testimony I could bring by the score. I wish I were not 
born an Armenian, although I am not ashamed of it. I wish 
nature had thrown me, at birth, into some part of the United 
States, because it would have enabled me to have spoken more 
vigorously, and perhaps my words might have carried more 
weight. I am not speaking as an Armenian, because there is no 
Armenianism in me any more. I sympathize with those people 
for whose present condition we are largely responsible as Ameri¬ 
cans, and just because of the accident of my birth I happen to 
know a little more about their suffering and troubles and priva¬ 
tions, I sympathize with them more than many of my hearers. 
But if I had my hearers with me at least five hours each, I could 
make them all sympathize with the condition of Armenians of 
today as I am sympathizing. If that is to be an Armenian, 
they would all be Armenians. We are responsible for their 
present condition, and we should find some way of giving some 
elasticity to the operation of the law so that more of the Ar¬ 
menians may be brought in, because they have no place to go. 

140 


Mr. A. R. Smith , Editor of the “Port of New York. ,} 

Mr. A. R. Smith : This question, after all, is a practical ques¬ 
tion. When this present law was enacted, the bill that came 
from the House of Representatives was thrown aside in the 
Senate, and everything beyond the enacting clause was thrown 
out, and the Senate substituted the bill which is now the law 
on the basis of the quota and also on the basis of the census. It 
was an experiment, but it is an experiment that the majority of 
people in Congress, as I see it, are satisfied with, and they are 
going to continue it for the time being. 

If that is so, it is desirable that we should try to get as much 
flexibility in the present law, if we can amend it, as possible. 
Let us retain the 3% quota if we can. I think that that is very 
desirable. There has been a very drastic cut in our immigra¬ 
tion, and we ought also to provide for the admissibles on the 
basis of net immigration, because it was the intent of Congress 
that such a percentage of the different nationalities should come 
in as the quota provided, and if a great many go out, then it is 
only fair that those nations should have their full quota here. 
I think, therefore, that it is desirable that we seek to amend the 
present act by making it as flexible as possible and doing as 
much for the non-quota people as possible, on the idea that the 
present method of restricting immigration is a popular one in 
Congress. If we work along the lines of Congressional ideas and 
tendencies with a view to getting as much flexibility and pre¬ 
venting the quota from being reduced, and to preventing the 
census year of 1890 being taken as the basis, we will have ac¬ 
complished a great deal, in my opinion. 

Mr. M. F. Behar , of the National Liberal Immigration League. 

Mr. M. F. Behar: I represent the National Liberal Immi¬ 
gration League, which stands for traditional Americanism and 
hospitality and whose platform has been expressed since 1906, 
by the slogan: “Selection, distribution, Americanization, pro¬ 
tection, rather than indiscriminate exclusion or restriction.” 

In reference to Question II-c, by all means have the percentage, 
if a percentage there must be (and we oppose this idea), based on 
the population rather than on the various race groups. The 
reason for that is that America must be kept American. America 
is neither a territory nor a group of people, but it is a set of ideals 
which were brought into being on this planet a century and a 

141 


half ago, and it is the view of the organization that I represent 
that America, as such, in its highest definition, will be greatly 
impaired by racial discrimination applied to white races. 

This platform of our League was not written by foreigners, 
but principally by the Chairman of our Educational Committee, 
who is Dr. Charles W. Eliot. The League is not a foreign or¬ 
ganization; it is non-sectarian, non-political and non-commer¬ 
cial; nor does it represent the industries, though we believe that 
our nation being an industrial and agricultural nation, the in¬ 
dustrial and agricultural requirements should be the first con¬ 
sideration in formulating a policy affecting the influx of workers. 

The admission of aliens to this country is one step. Their 
admission to citizenship is another step. This perhaps is not 
exactly the question before the conference; but let me urge that 
in all discussions of immigration this great fact be kept track of, 
that while a great many men and women may come here and 
work, produce and spend, they can’t do us any harm except by 
crimes if they are not citizens. The great need is for rigid educa¬ 
tional, political, social, financial and all other kinds of require¬ 
ments for admission to citizenship. The probationary period of 
five years is too short, considering how little we do to educate 
aliens; it should be ten years at least. Those born in America 
have to wait twenty-one years. It would not be unjust and 
against the interests of this nation, nor would it be against 
America, being a set of ideals in its highest definition, to have 
the probationary period extended, and the requirements for 
citizenship made much more rigid. 

The changes to be made in the quota law have been referred 
to under Question I today, in the morning and the afternoon 
sessions, although they should have been referred to only this 
evening, but so long as we have a quota, it should be based on 
the general population and not on any races, because, as our 
organization believes, it is fundamentally wrong to discriminate 
against races and would be a reversal of traditional Americanism. 

Miss Edith B. Caff, of Madison House, New York. 

Miss Edith Caff: The settlement which which I am con¬ 
nected is a purely American institution. We work with Jews 
because our settlement happens to be situated on Madison 
Street, from which the Irish moved out and the Jews moved in. 
Now a great many of the Jews are moving out, too, and the 

142 


Polish and Italians are moving in, so that probably in four or 
five or ten years from now this settlement will take care of the 
Italians and the Poles. We have some now, too. But the pre¬ 
dominating population there is Jewish, and so our work is with 
Jews. Therefore, of course, it is easiest for me to talk about the 
Jewish people as we see them. 

There were given several reasons why we should further re¬ 
strict immigration, industrial reasons, the purity of American 
blood, the undesirability of the immigrants. The statement 
has been that they are dependent, that they are crazy, and so 
forth, and as examples are chosen, for some reason or another, 
the Jews, or let us be very polite and say one race—you won’t 
know then whom I mean. 

That one race happens to be the one that we are taking care 
of, and I would like to know one man here who so surely talked 
about things who will stand up and tell me just what he has 
against the Jews. 

Now, about the desirability of the particular race we are work¬ 
ing with—they say we won’t assimilate. My own daughter does 
not speak a word of Yiddish, does not understand anything that 
is Yiddish or Jewish. She is thoroughly American, not because 
I wanted her to be, although I consider myself a very good 
American. I didn’t train her to that; life did. Our Jews do 
assimilate, probably a little bit too much so, and I say from this 
point of view we are very desirable. 

We do need immigration, for if you did not need any more 
grown up manpower than you have now, you would take hun¬ 
dreds of thousands of your children from the mines and factories 
and send them to school. But you don’t do that because you 
need man power, or at least one is to suppose that that is the 
reason. The negroes have left the South and come North and 
the people in the South complain that they don’t have any man 
power to do their work. You say that this particular race will 
not go South. Well, that is true—they will not. 

But I want to tell you about this particular race. I made an 
investigation of the trade schools of New York a couple of 
months ago, and I find that our trade schools are being over¬ 
flowed with the children of this particular race; that there is a 
great movement in this particular race to go back to the soil, to 
the factory and shop, because it is the first time in the history 

143 


of the world that we have a chance to do so, and we are taking it. 

At first you will accuse this particular race of not assimilating, 
of being clannish. Then you accuse us of polluting the pure 
American blood. If we are clannish, there is no way we can 
pollute you. If we aren’t, then it is all right. 

Really, the bottom of it all is this, that you accuse the Jews 
of being radicals, revolutionists, the leaders of everything that 
is against American institutions. I think I am within the limits 
of my subject when I say that it is true to a very limited extent. 

We are not in favor of restricting any particular race, but we 
are in favor of restricting the immigration of undesirable persons. 
I am sure that there are coming to this country a great many 
undesirable people, such as criminals, feebleminded people, sick 
people, etc. They should be eliminated by some sort of selec¬ 
tion*. But before you point out any particular race or nation¬ 
ality as undesirable, instead of sureness, a little bit of knowledge 
and information would be in place. 

Mr. Giuseppe Vitelli, representing the Italian Chamber of Commerce of 
New York, presented the following statement on the questions 
under discussion at this session: 

II. a. We are firmly of the opinion that the present limits 
of the Per Centum Act, in order to be retained with its ad¬ 
ministrative amendments suggested under Question I, should be 
extended, as we do not consider them sufficient to meet the needs 
of the country. We are further in favor of extending the power 
of the President to decree an increase not to exceed 50% of 
whatever quota named, whenever in his wisdom the require¬ 
ments of the country may need such an increase in the quota of 
admissibles. 

b. The percentage of immigrants admissible should be based 
on the latest available census, as was the case with the present 
law. To change the system should be an open discrimination 
against those countries which have supplied immigration during 
the last thirty years, during which period the progress and 
prosperity of the country has been greater than ever before. 
Such change might also be construed as an unfriendly act by 
nations with whom we are enjoying perfect good will. 

c. We think that the percentage should be computed, as at 
present, on the number of aliens of each nationality group resid¬ 
ing in the United States, which is more easily arrived at. 

144 


d. The quota should unquestionably be based on the net 
immigration, due allowance being made for emigrants returning. 
This is no more than equitable and is the only assurance that 
the country will acquire a net gain. It is well known that under 
the present system, from certain countries, we have had a net 
loss of manpower, which is a thing to be avoided in these times 
of shortage of labor. 


Adjournment 


IV 


FRIDAY MORNING SESSION 
December 14, 1923 

The meeting convened at 10:20 o'clock, Mr. Peter J. Brady, President 
of the Federation Bank of New York, presiding. 

Chairman Brady: Everybody who knows about the labor 
movement in New York City knows that I have been more or 
less connected with the movement for a good many years. As 
you know, the American Federation of Labor has a definite 
program on immigration, and has had a very definite policy on 
it for a long time. I was going to touch lightly on it this morn¬ 
ing, but inasmuch as Mr. Hugh Frayne, the organizer of the 
American Federation of Labor in charge of this district is present 
this morning, I am going to call on him a little later and let him 
put before you the policy of the American Federation of Labor 
and its attitude toward immigration. 

The question for discussion this morning is: “ Shall special 
legislation be enacted to secure better selection , distribution and 
assimilation of alien immigrants ?” together with the special 
suggestions listed under this head in the program. 

The first speaker at this session was Mr. Harry E. Stone, of the Rotary 
Club of West Virginia. 

Mr. Harry E. Stone: I might say at the outset that my 
primary purpose in being here is to take back to West Virginia 
the composite view of those who represent different groups here 
at th’s convention. My point of view is that of the educator, 
and of one who has been a director of Americanization in a city 
of about 100,000, of whom a large percentage are of foreign birth 
or parentage. 

As a major premise for my brief discussion, I want to say that, 
in my judgment, selection that is based on the needs of our 
country and the permanent welfare of our people is not neces¬ 
sarily inconsistent with love of and service to the stranger 
within our gates. 

First, I wish to speak concerning the Canadian system. This 
system is restrictive, it is selective, it is preferential, and it is 
based on the needs of Canada rather than on the desires of par- 

146 


ticular groups, either of labor, capital or race, in Canada. The 
Canadian system is designed to benefit the whole of Canada 
rather than any particular group in Canada. It considers the 
amount and kind of immigration that Canada can absorb. 

The Commissioner of Immigration in Canada says frankly 
that he does favor people from certain countries and from cer¬ 
tain races. Canada favors the agriculturist, because Canada 
needs agricultural labor. Canada favors British immigrants 
and those from the United States, and particularly the New 
England States. She seeks the repatriation of desirable Can¬ 
adians who have come to the United States. 

I like the Canadian system because it gives more leeway, more 
opportunity for judgment and discretion, than is given in 
Washington. It is in line with the flexibility emphasized as 
desirable by our Assistant Secretary of Labor. I like the defini¬ 
tion of undesirable that the Canadian Commissioner of Immi¬ 
gration has given. He says: “Mark you, I mean undesirable as 
it relates to the needs of Canada, not undesirable per se.” There 
is no stigma attached to this term when it relates to the needs of 
a people and of a country. 

The Canadian system provides for checking undesirable im¬ 
migration abroad at the port of embarkation, through control 
of the issuance of passports. The Canadian policy is not based 
on any false idea about the equal desirability and assimilability 
of all nationals, but upon the needs of Canada and the per¬ 
manent welfare of her people, those needs being not only ma¬ 
terial, but social, moral and spiritual. 

I would like to emphasize that all of this seems to be possible 
and in consonance with the scriptural injunction referred to 
yesterday, that if a stranger shall sojourn among thee, thou 
shalt treat him as one born among thee, and if he shall dwell 
with thee, thou shalt love him as thyself. 

As to registration, if our government, after careful study of 
the question and in view of all the facts that it can obtain, de¬ 
cides that some system of registration is necessary to prevent 
the smuggling of undesirable aliens to our shores, then I am for 
some system of registration; but the fee should not be too large, 
and the surplus over and above the necessary cost of operation 
should go for the education of the foreign-born who are with us, 
and for unselfish service and kindly service to them. 

I shall not take the time to discuss the contract labor law. 

147 


Personally, I feel that the benefits that have come from that 
law have been greater than the harm that it has caused. I 
am not prepared, however, to assert that it should not be 
modified in any degree. 

As to “g,” whether aliens should be prohibited from going 
to our cities, I want to say most emphatically that you cannot 
enforce any law that attempts to prohibit an alien from going 
where his friends and relatives are and where his best interests 
dictate that he shall go. He will arrive at that place in time in 
spite of any legislation. Such a law, I think, would be unen¬ 
forceable. 

Whatever we do, my friends, must be done without prejudice 
and without passion, and the paramount thought must be the 
permanent welfare of our institutions and our people, and we 
must increase our service, educationally and otherwise, to the 
stranger who is with us. 

As a final word concerning the question of assimilation I 
believe that no greater hindrance, no greater menace to the 
assimilation of the right kind of immigrants who come to us 
prevails in our country today than that menace of the fake 
financier, the shyster lawyer, the crooked grafter, whether he 
be a payroll grafter or some other type. I have been shocked 
and astounded, during the past ten years, at the revelation of 
the amount and kind of graft that begins at the port of entry, 
with the raw material for citizenship. I would like to ask what 
constructive suggestion you personally would care to offer as 
to how to overcome this great obstacle, which puts the foreigner 
in a mental position which makes it indeed difficult for him to 
become assimilated. 

Chairman Brady: I am delighted to answer the speaker’s 
question to the best of my ability. If I was exceedingly selfish, 
I would say, of course, come to the Federation Bank of New 
York, our trade union bank, and let us forward the money 
abroad. For those who deal in foreign exchange, it is one of the 
most grievous questions that we have in this country, and one 
that makes the deepest impression upon those who enter our 
gates—the treatment that they receive on their arrival, the 
swindling that takes place at that time and continues thereafter 
while they are forwarding money to dependents in other lands. 

I don’t know how far other states have gone, but New York 
148 


State has ma e excellent progress in the last few years and is 
adding more restrictive features each year. We have a legisla¬ 
tive committee studying that particular problem at the present 
time, which I am sure will make very strong recommendations 
to the coming session of our state legislature, and I have no 
doubt at all about their ultimate enactment into law. 

Anybody who acts in a fiscal capacity for another person, 
either on entering this country or in forwarding money to their 
relatives in other lands, should be licensed y some state 
authority and put upon a bond that would cover any loss and 
leave him subject to criminal prosecutions for any frauds that 
might occur while he is handling somebody else’s money in trust. 

This morning you are discussing this from the national view¬ 
point, while the revelations that we have had recently have been 
confined to the state; and whatever safeguards we set up in the 
State of New York won’t necessarily apply to other states. So 
we might be able, as a result of pooling our thoughts here, to 
get together upon a national program that might put these so- 
called agents under the supervision of federal authorities. Any¬ 
thing we can do in that direction will be worth while, because 
every one of these agents who cheats his fellow-countrymen or 
other countrymen in an unscrupulous way is a greater menace 
to the foundation of the United States than any Bolshevik or so- 
called Bolshevik, or any extreme employer on the other side who 
has exploited labor and created resentment in the same way. 

I do hope that out of this discussion will come constructive 
programs for federal enactment, supplemented by state regula¬ 
tion, that will control each and every one of these agents, either 
handling steamship tickets or money for the foreign-born. There 
are means available at present if it could be brought home forc¬ 
ibly enough to these people that if they will do business with 
any reliable financial institution they won’t be exploited. Un¬ 
fortunately these other people get to them before they have a 
chance of getting a contact and knowing anything about a re¬ 
liable financial institution. Owing to the fact that these agents 
put “bank” or “fiscal agent” or something else after their name, 
the immigrants are led to believe that they are connected with 
the Government in some way, and therefore authorized to carry 
on their exploitation at will. 


149 


The Reverend Christopher L. Orbach , President of the Daily Slovak Amer¬ 
ican , officially representing the Slovak League of America. 

Reverend C. L. Orbach: The reason why I desire to speak 
before you is to do my duty as a representative of the Slovak 
League of America, which represents about 700,000 Slovak 
countrymen in this country, and which is very well known to all 
the departments of our government as an eminent—not Slovak 
organization, because we are Slovaks in name only because of 
our descent, but as an eminent American patriotic organization 
which worked with all departments of the Government espe¬ 
cially during the war. 

The paper which I represent is the Daily Slovak American. 
It is published in a foreign language right in this city. I know 
that there are many representatives of the Government here, 
and I am going to say especially to them, that our paper, during 
the war, devoted all its existence to nothing but to the orders 
and commands of the Government, the War Department, the 
Treasury Department, and so on. I feel that our paper’s policy 
is not the exception but the rule among papers published in a 
foreign language in America; at any rate, that is true of the 
large majority. 

I want to speak to Question “i:” “Shall other legislation be 
enacted, and if so, what kind ?” I choose this paragraph be¬ 
cause it is so broad and will give me an opportunity to say the 
few words which I have to say in the name of the Slovak League. 

I believe that if a law should be enacted which would make 
the census of 1890 the basis of immigration, a great injustice 
would be done to the citizens of America of Slovak descent as 
well as to those who want to come. To deny the census of 
1910, to ignore it or to eliminate it, is simply denying facts, 
denying a part of the history of the United States. 

Those of Slovak descent are in a peculiar condition in this 
country, because most of us were registered when we came here 
in 1890, as well as later, as Hungarians or Austrians, for the 
reason that then we were living under Hapsburg domination. 
We didn’t know whether they were Slovaks or what. I appeal 
especially to the leaders of this movement to remember that, 
and don’t throw us back to 1890, because in 1890 we didn’t really 
know that we were Slovaks. Since then, our people have been 
educated and have learned here in America that they are 
Slovaks. 


150 


We would have a little more show if the census which now 
exists were to be used, therefore, than the census of 1890. You 
say that this will mean more immigration. Yes, certainly it will, 
but we believe that there should be selective immigration, and 
that only the best type of immigrants should be admitted. 

We heard yesterday that there is a great reservoir of workers 
in America. You all know that there is an incomparably greater 
reservoir of work to be done. Why, within one hour of here you 
find 75% of the area is not populated and not cultivated. I 
live about half an hour from here in Bergen County, New Jersey, 
and 75% of the land there is swamps. 

* It has been said here that there are so many insane among the 
immigrants. I only wish that you would investigate more 
deeply where those insane come from. I have a wide acquain¬ 
tance among people who were born in other countries and have 
come to America to live, and I have found that they are healthy 
and strong to a remarkable degree. 

You will find immigrants among those good men and 
women who devote their lives to charity and to ministering to 
the poor and to the sick. I know thousands and tens of thou¬ 
sands of immigrants personally, and I know they work and 
make money and they are happy and healthy. I don’t see that 
they are insane and sick. 

The reputation of the immigrant is like the reputation of the 
women, our mothers and good wives and sisters, those devoted, 
loyal, pure, virtuous mothers and sisters and wives and sweet¬ 
hearts. Nothing is said of them, but let one of the women go 
from the path of truth and virtue and the whole country knows 
it, and both the big and the small papers carry her picture. 

Don’t be afraid of the immigrant. Study him, believe him. 
I beg you not to do an injustice to the immigrant by returning 
to the census of 1890. 

Mr. Arthur Essing of the Jewelry Crafts Association of New York. 

Mr. Essing: I am going to try to confine myself to the 
question, and with particular reference to Paragraphs “e” and 
“i”: “Shall a system of registration be applied to alien im¬ 
migrants, and shall special legislation be enacted ?” 

I think the points that I wish to bring home I can best illus¬ 
trate by a personal experience and observation which I had a 
few years ago. As probably you all remember, in the year 1916, 

151 


prior to our entering the war, there was a law enacted by Con¬ 
gress requiring every resident to register. At that time, I 
offered my services as a registrar and was assigned to a section 
in this city on the lower East Side. As you all recall, it was in 
the form of a questionnaire, and among the questions it in¬ 
cluded the name, address, length of time in the country, na¬ 
tionality, and so forth. On this day in question we registered 
437 male residents between the ages of twenty-one and thirty- 
one. 

At the close of the day, Mr. Smith, the present Governor of 
the State, who resided in that district, happened to come into 
the registration place, and I said to him: “Mr. Smith, you live 
in this district ?” 

He said: “Yes.” 

I said: “Do you know it ?” 

He said: “I think I do. I ought to. This happens to be my 
district. I live in this district, and I have lived here all my life.” 

I said: “I would like to put a question to you. Of these 437 
residents that we registered, how many are citizens ?” 

He said: “We have a large foreign population. We have 
many Italians, many Greeks, some Chinese and other nation¬ 
alities, but I can give you a very fair estimate. How many did 
you say you registered ?” 

I said: “Four hundred and thirty-seven.” 

“Well, about a little less than half of those—I should say 200 
—are citizens.” 

Before I give you the number who were actually citizens, I 
will add that I made a survey, and of the 437, 65% were in 
this country over five years. The number applying for their 
first papers was nil, and the actual citizens of those 437 that 
were registered numbered less than 50—the number was 47. 

Now, it would seem to me radically wrong to permit immi¬ 
grants to come over here, receive the benefits of education, of 
protection and the various other opportunities offered them, 
and have no provision in our laws compelling registration. 

About a year ago—I think it was on December 8—our late 
lamented President made a recommendation to Congress, and 
in that recommendation he largely dealt with the question of 
registration. I think if his recommendations are studied, you 
will find that most of the recommendations made by those 
who have spoken were included in those made by President 

152 


Harding at that time. I will not take your time to read his 
message on immigration, but I would like to read about three 
lines, which, to my mind, squarely hit the nail on the head. 
He said, among other things: “Life amid American opportuni¬ 
ties is worth the cost of registration if it is worth the seeking. 
This nation has a right to know who are citizens in the making 
or who live among us and share our advantages while seeking to 
undermine our cherished institutions.” 

In conclusion, I would like to say that while favoring regis¬ 
tration, I think (and it seems also to be the consensus of opinon 
of the speakers that preceded me) that the law should go a little 
further. Some provision should be made that in addition to the 
registration, after immigrants are here a certain length of time, 
they be compelled to become citizens or to declare their inten¬ 
tions, which must be lived up to, and if not lived up to, that 
they be sent back to the place from which they originally came. 

Mr. Hugh Frayne , of the American Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Hugh Frayne: The ten minutes allowed will not per¬ 
mit me to make any extended statement regarding the American 
Federation of Labor’s position upon this all-important subject. 
I shall not attempt strictly to follow the program, but will 
briefly refer to a few of the questions. 

The American Federation of Labor is primarily responsible 
for the present immigration law. We do not claim that it is a 
perfect law but it is the very best we could get Congress to 
enact. We regret to see some of the pathetic things that happen 
from time to time, such as separation of families, and we hope 
that the law will be amended to remedy this condition. Until a 
better law is enacted that will protect the interests of labor and 
the country generally, we are going to stand behind the present 
one and the Department of Labor in its enforcement of it. 

The contract labor law has functioned and has done a splendid 
work, and if there are any changes to be made, it is my opinion 
that such changes should be made to make the law stronger 
against those who have been violating its provisions through all 
kinds of subterfuges. We know that the immigrants have been 
shamefully exploited and no one regrets or sympathizes more 
with them than does organized labor. I believe that the Joint 
Legislative Committee of the State of New York to Invesitgate 
the Exploitation of Immigrants will, in its report and by legis- 

153 


lation based upon the information obtained in the hearings of 
the Committee, arouse such a strong public interest that laws 
will be enacted in the State of New York which will prevent 
future exploitation of those poor unfortunate immigrants who 
fall into the hands of these evil schemers. 

It is my belief, and this is shared by others, that much of this 
exploiting of immigrants could be prevented if the welfare 
organizations would exercise greater care and not permit some 
of the aliens to fall into the hands of those who take advantage 
of their helpless condition. These organizations should see to 
it that the immigrant is protected until he is turned over to his 
friends when he lands, or until he is put in charge of those who 
will see him safely to his destination. 

It has always been the desire of large numbers of people from 
European countries to come to America and that desire has 
been strengthened as a result of the World War. Poor people, 
especially, do not want to remain in those countries because of 
conditions. The present law does not deny them the right to 
come, but it does deny them the right to come all at one time. 
It is right that we be sympathetic with these suffering people. 
No one has tried to protect them more than organized labor has, 
but we believe that our sympathy must also extend to those 
who are here, many of them American citizens and others in 
the making, who have built homes, rasied their families here and 
are taxpayers. We are not opposed to any race except the 
Asiatics. The Government itself is firm upon that question. 

The American Federation of Labor is not the only organization 
that is opposed to an unrestricted immigration law. The danger 
to the welfare of America and its institutions from such a law is 
becoming better understood by thinking people who are in¬ 
terested in America and its future. One of the most ardent 
advocates for an unrestricted immigration policy that I have 
ever met was also the most pronounced and emphatic pacifist 
I ever knew preceding and during the great World War. He 
let no opportunity go by to help those who were fighting America 
and those associated with us in the war. 

The State of New York and the City of New York are paying 
millions of dollars every year to provide for those in prisons, 
penal institutions and insane asylums. Many of these people 
were mentally deficient and criminally inclined when they came 
here and after a short residence, some from six months to two 

154 


years, have become charges upon the taxpayers of the city, the 
state and the nation. 

We look upon this question as more than an economic one. 
While we want the rights of labor protected, we also want the 
welfare of the nation protected. If those who come here cannot 
be made into good American citizens, those with criminal in¬ 
stincts and on the border line of weak mentality can be of no 
benefit to this country and must be prevented from entering, 
as well as those who seek to get all they can here and give nothing 
in return, not even a profession of loyalty to the Government. 
The Government has a right to pass immigration laws that will 
insure its safety and progress. Many of our states have com¬ 
pulsory education laws. The American-born children are com¬ 
pelled to go to school up to the legal age. 

The real problem is whether America is going to remain a 
country composed of American citizens, either by birth or by 
adoption. What applied in the old days does not apply now in 
the matter of immigration any more than it does in other ques¬ 
tions that have had to be changed or modified. This question 
means more than the mere fact of men and women coming to 
this country and becoming workers. It begins way back in the 
home, which, after all, is the cornerstone and foundation of 
government. It means, what will come out of that home in the 
way of development, the children that will be raised in that 
home, what ideas and ideals they possess. Will they develop 
into American citizens and take their places in the nation’s work, 
stand up and defend its principles ? 

I made a report at the close of my work as a member of the 
War Industries Board and in that report I made certain recom¬ 
mendations to the President, as well as to the chairman of the 
Board. I have had no reason to change my mind after a number 
of years have elapsed. This, however, is only my personal 
opinion and I do not commit the American Federation of Labor 
to it. I said then, as a recommendation, that, attached officially 
to the consuls representing this nation in all of the foreign 
countries, there ought to be representatives of business, finance 
and labor; that the Department of Labor, through its Immigra¬ 
tion Service, should have attached to it, in order to give addi¬ 
tional standing and prestige to its representatives, an expert 
upon immigration so that at any time when a question arose 
and we wanted to know what was going on in England, for 

155 


instance, in regard to labor conditions, the representative of 
labor would find out actual facts on the ground, convey it to his 
chief and through that channel let it come back to the Govern¬ 
ment through its Department of Labor. If it was a question 
of finance, a question of business, it would be investigated and 
reported back by those representatives in the same manner; and 
in the matter of immigration, if there was a demand, a proven 
shortage of labor or a want for a certain kind of men, whether 
workers or men with business training, that information could 
be made known through our channels here and conveyed to the 
consul in any particular country or to all of them. 

Any immigrant having a criminal record or physically unfit 
to become a citizen should be denied a vise on the other side. 
It is my judgment that if that was done we would be all working 
together in common understanding upon a system or arrange¬ 
ment that would deal fairly and justly with this important 
problem. 

We are opposed to the suggestion of finger printing or regis¬ 
tration of immigrants. Both Germany and Russia have used 
these systems and succeeded in making those coming under 
such brutal laws to submit to the worst kind of espionage. Any 
alien who is eligible to enter this country under the law should 
not be subjected to treatment any different than that received 
by those who were born here. 

Mrs. Mary Ware Dennett, Director of the Voluntary Parenthood League, 
New York. 

Mrs. Dennett: My topic is “Safeguarding Uncle Sam and 
the Immigrant’s Family by Birth Control Knowledge.” It has 
to do with legislation of an immediate and very practical type. 
In order to stay w ; thin the ten-minute limit, I apologize to 
you for reading a paper instead of speaking. 

Mrs. Dennett then began to read her paper. She was interrupted by the 
Chairman. 

Chairman Brady: Mrs. Dennett, I am sorry, but I will 
have to rule your subject out. We are not dealing with birth 
control at this time. Mr. Noxon will please take the platform. 

Mr. Frank W. Noxon , of the Railway Business Association. 

Mr. Frank W. Noxon: The Railway Business Association 
which I serve is not an association of railway executives but of 

156 


manufacturers of railway equipment, and it instructs me to 
urge a policy in which limitation of immigration is based not on 
quantity but on quality. In other words, the entire discussion 
of the details under which a quantity policy shall be adminis¬ 
tered is beside the mark so far as we are concerned. 

We cooperated very heartily last winter in efforts to make 
amendments to the existing policy without a renovation of it, 
and are ready to do so again, in line with the suggestions which 
appear on the program; but our view in general is that the 
quality of the individual immigrant may be tested by specific 
tests applied wisely, with no reference whatever to the numbers 
who may come in under them, and that a surplus remedies itself 
by emigration. 

Mr. Alexander, in his address yesterday morning, mentioned 
the lack of knowledge and intimated proposals of research. 
Instead of arguing the question at length, I ask permission to 
read a number of questions, the answers to which are to be 
found in research, and which bear on the theme that we had in 
mind. 

1. In the present stage of mechanical progress, what effect 
upon employment of skilled workers, and upon the material 
prosperity of communities where their payrolls are spent, would 
be produced by a shortage of effective available unskilled labor ? 
Many industries which lack unskilled labor are restricted in 
their operations, and the result is unemployment or a failure 
to enlarge the employment of skilled labor. That means not 
only a misfortune to those skilled laborers who would be em¬ 
ployed if there were a supply of unskilled labor, but it affects 
the prosperity of the entire community, all the tradesmen and 
everybody with whom they deal. 

2. In those industries where machinery has been substituted 
for unskilled labor, what is the requirement for skilled labor and 
what are the prospects that American-born boys and girls will 
enter these occupations ? Our shortage of skilled labor is sure to 
be accentuated if we fail to continue to do as we have in the 
past and bring in unskilled labor which, in turn, in the first or 
second generation, becomes skilled labor. Our American boys 
and girls not only don’t incline to go into unskilled labor; they 
decline to go into mechanical operations. The white collar job 
is what they are seeking, and all that sort of thing, and it may 
be that in the future the United States should avoid all of that 

157 


kind of occupation. If so, we are in for a great revolution, and 
a great many people are going to suffer while you try to put it 
into effect. 

3. In what industries and to what extent is the substitution 
of machinery for hand labor still a hope and not an actual or 
impending fact ? Some years ago, before the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission, a rate advance case was pending, and some 
of the attorneys brought forward the proposal of what was 
called scientific management which should be resorted to by the 
railroads, as in that way they could save a very large sum of 
money in operating expenses. The Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission inquired what percentage of the industry of the country 
was organized on that basis and was told less than half of 1%. 
The Commission assured these people that in the future, as this 
thing might develop, it might be a practical question, but at 
the moment, they had their livings to make and a problem to 
solve, and this thing would have to wait, like every other pioneer 
movement. 

4. If the flow of immigration be substantially reduced over 
what has been admitted in the past, and by reason of shortage 
of unskilled labor and shortage also of a source for development 
of skilled labor, the growth and expansion of mechanical in¬ 
dustries shall be slowed down, what will be the effect in the im¬ 
mediate future upon millions of our people whose occupation 
on the farm, in the mine, in the forest, in the shop and in trade 
is dependent, not upon meeting current consumption of com¬ 
modities, but upon preparing the processes of production and 
distribution for future expected enlargement of business ? 
It may be a very fine ideal that the United States should not 
grow as fast in the future as it has in the past, but gentlemen 
who come in airily with dapper witticisms and stories to illus¬ 
trate the motives of those who favor larger immigration are 
perhaps appropriating other people’s prosperity in a light¬ 
hearted manner. Every good thing comes slowly if it comes 
wisely, and for us to stop suddenly, with an abrupt reduction 
in the amount of immigration, all those processes to which we 
are accustomed and to which millions of people are adapted 
and depend for their occupations, is not a wise proposal for 
anybody and will certainly inflict hardship upon millions of 
our people. 

5. What would be the effect of a shortage in unskilled and 

158 


skilled labor upon the industries whose specialty is the develop¬ 
ment of labor-saving devices and methods for other industries ? 
The point has been made very fully by Mr. Alexander that in 
the past some think our progress mechanically, our progress 
toward the elimination of hand labor, has been retarded by the 
fact that we have such a full supply of rough labor. We mustn’t 
forget that mechanical progress doesn’t come of itself. It is 
done in the mechanical industries, which must have a supply of 
both skilled and unskilled labor to carry through this process 
that promises so much. 

6. What effect would be produced upon mechanical progress 
in railway transportation if a labor shortage should impede the 
activities of those who carry on experiments in that field, and 
what would be the effect upon railroad freight rates if by an 
abrupt and extensive stoppage of immigration we were to slow 
down mechanical progress toward lower operating cost upon 
the railways ? 

7. Precisely what injury, not promptly redressed by emigra¬ 
tion in time of slump, is done to the country by admission of 
aliens individually unobjectionable, merely because of numbers ? 

8. Comparing the states having the highest and the lowest 
percentage of their population foreign-born, what is the illiter¬ 
acy of those having native and those having foreign-born par¬ 
ents ? I don’t express a conclusion. I do convey an impression 
derived from some study of the statistics which indicate that 
illiteracy among the children of foreign-born parents is lower 
than among those of native-born parents of the United States. 

9. Segregating major and minor offenses, comparing natives 
with the foreign-born, what are the statistics of crime ? They 
are very imperfect, and my own conclusions are very hazy. 
It is a subject worth study, particularly the subject of improv¬ 
ing the basis of statistics. 

10. Comparing the states having the highest and the lowest 
foreign-born population, which casts the higher percentage of 
the Socialist vote ? Many of our citizens who have discussed 
this question profess a great fear that political tendencies which 
alarm them are accentuated by the incoming of immigrants. I 
have for four or five quadrennia analyzed every time the pres¬ 
idential vote in comparison with the population statistics, as to 
nativity, and every time my conclusion has been that it is the 
native stock from which we are recruiting our radical tendency, 

159 


a very marked and extraordinary manifestation, if you will 
examine the statistics. 

11. Precisely in what way does immigration influence native- 
born college graduates to restrict the size of their families ? 

12. Precisely in what way has immigration influenced 
native-born Americans of Nordic extraction to adopt standards 
of personal and social conduct different from those of earlier 
generations of the same stocks ? 

13. In notorious social crimes such as the massacre at 
Herrin and in political movements designed to break down our 
form of government, do foreign-sounding and southern and 
eastern European names predominate among the offenders, 
or do the Nordic ? 

Mr. Max J. Kohler, representing the Baron de Hirsch Fund. 

Mr. Max J. Kohler: The proposed registration of aliens 
has secured considerable rash support by reason of the fact that 
it was sponsored by Secretary of Labor Davis in his annual 
report for 1922, and that he was enabled to secure hasty approval 
for the project from President Harding and now in some in¬ 
determinate form from President Coolidge. The Secretary’s 
message shows that he invokes as precedents our barbarous 
Chinese Exclusion registration law and two of the so-called 
Alien and Sedition Acts, enacted June 18 and June 25, 1798, 1 
through the efforts of Jefferson and Madison, which drove the 
Federalist party out of office for decades, because of their dis¬ 
criminatory, oppressive and arbitrary character. 

Few people in the United States—and I do not except the 
Secretary—are today familiar with the workings of our Chinese 
Registration Law, as registration ceased thereunder six months 
after November 3, 1893. As it happens, I had charge, as As¬ 
sistant United States District Attorney, of deportation proceed¬ 
ings under this Act for the Government in New York City from 
1894 to 1898 and have had occasion to act since then for some 
of the unfortunate victims, and have studied the subject care¬ 
fully for nearly thirty years. 

No more serious blow at the alien residents of this country 
has ever been suggested, however innocently intended, than this 
apparently innocuous measure. Registration annually of all 
resident alien men, women and children is provided for at not 
x Laws of United States from 1789 to 1815, Vol. Ill, pp. 62-4, 66-8. 

160 


inconsiderable expense, meaning much to them, at places diffi¬ 
cult to ascertain and times hard to remember, and the penalty 
for neglect, however technical, is deportation of persons having 
their relatives, their property and all their ties here, and wholly 
regardless of time, as long as they remain aliens. The Chinese 
Exclusion Law provision is even out-Heroded, because this is 
to be an annual performance, and instead of judicial proceedings 
for deportation, it is to be done on mere executive warrant, 
where the same person is, in effect, accuser and judge. In the 
best of faith, many thousands of the seven million aliens of the 
country, will, on occasion, neglect to register through oversight, 
and in consequence be torn from their families and shipped 
abroad. 1 

Our State Department protested against registration of our 
citizens abroad, where any substantial penalty is involved, as 
an oppressive violation of treaty' 2 and President Arthur vetoed 
the first federal proposal for Chinese registration as a violation 
of treaty in 1882. 3 But there is no concealment of the fact 
(despite occasional and contradictory denials of intentions of 
espionage) that one at least of the purposes of registration is to 
send a host of inspectors abroad throughout the land, to question 
the legality of the original entry or right of residence of the 
seven million aliens here, as soon as they have registered. 

To judge by our experiences under the Chinese Exclusion 
Laws, which involved only 100,000 Chinese, this means an un¬ 
paralleled opportunity for oppression, blackmail, extortion and 
excessive zeal on the part of inspectors, often certain to be un¬ 
scrupulous, to which seven million resident aliens are to be 
exposed. Mary Roberts Coolidge’s study of our Chinese Ex- 

x In the leading bill (understood to have been prepared by immigration offi* 
cials), the Johnson Bill H. R. 10860 of the 67th Congress, 2nd Session, having 
as companion the so-called “Shortridge Bill” in the Senate, Sections 321 to 400 
deal with registration of aliens. The penalty for non-registration is not merely 
a $25.00 fine (Sec. 328a), but deportation on the Secretary’s warrant is author¬ 
ized in every instance where the aliens who entered after the passage of this 
bill fail to register, and it is not limited to willful or contumacious refusals 
(Sec. 328b). The only exception is in the case of persons whom the Secretary 
under general regulation determines to have been “unable” to register. This 
is even more limited than the exception specified in the Chinese Exclusion Laws, 
and under it the courts have held that a person who was too ill to register dur¬ 
ing the last month of registration (when almost all his companions did register), 
is not excused, because he might have foreseen illness and registered earlier! 
It has also been held that even the United States judicial official can simply 
refuse to be satisfied with the Chinese evidence of inability (193 U. S. 65, at 78). 

2 6 Moore’s International Law Digest 316-8. 

3 8 Richardson’s Messages 116. 


161 


elusion Law in her book on “Chinese Immigration” and the 
reports of criminal prosecutions of inspectors throw some light 
on the extent to which these opportunities were availed of, as 
against the Chinese; I specified a number lately before the 
Committee on Immigration of the U. S. House of Representa¬ 
tives. 1 Such man-hunting can only be compared to the “fugitive 
slave” hunter, and the inspectors will roam the country at large, 
free from the observing eye of their superiors and associates 
serving in the same building at Ellis Island or elsewhere. 

I do not claim that a large number of the present immigration 
inspectors are corrupt, although quite a number stationed even 
at Ellis Island have recently been prosecuted by the Govern¬ 
ment itself, or removed for cause. Nor is this claim made as to 
Chinese Exclusion officials now in office, years after registration 
was called for. But reference is made to the new opportunities 
and new temptations which such registration law would afford, 
practically unchecked, and past experience of a similar character 
under Chinese Exclusion registration is referred to as indicating 
the imminent danger involved. Under those laws, all Chinese 
residents in particular localities were arrested wholesale from 
time to time with impunity, though many were ultimately held 
not to be subject to registration at all and others had certificates. 
Arrests were even brought to light of Chinese who refused to 
purchase bogus certificates, dealt in by agents of inspectors. As 
compared to the attending possibilities for corruption and ex¬ 
tortion, our recent experiences with venal federal prohibition 
officials are comparatively insignificant. Mrs. Coolidge’s pains¬ 
taking study also shows how little confidence can be placed in 
the theory that such despotic arbitrary power will be exercised 
only benevolently in the interest of the aliens, though the con¬ 
trary sufficiently appears also under the general immigration 
laws. 

But we are told that one purpose is to check “the undesirable 
whose irregular coming is his first violation of our laws.” The 
present laws afford such inquisitorial opportunities, but this new 
plan will encourage overzealous or corrupt inspectors to chal¬ 
lenge systematically the right of residence of seven millions of 
aliens. Scarcely an alien arrives, as to whom some erroneous 
statement, even in good faith, is not made in the ship’s manifest, 
for instance. I have used them in court, and supervised an 
Clearings for 1923, p. 426 et seq., especially p. 447 et seq. 

162 


investigation in which some thousands of records were tested. 
Are all these aliens to be deported to aid inspectors in making 
records ? We just heard of supposed systematic activities by a 
foreign government, to encourage their subjects to come over. 
This is illegal, though the aliens abroad doubtless were un¬ 
familiar with such prohibition in our law. Are they to be torn 
from their homes and deported, perhaps years hence ? In recent 
war days, all sorts of complications have arisen for the immi¬ 
grant. Many thousands of immigrants have been despoiled on 
the way over, and the amount of money they had on actual 
sailing did not correspond with the amount they specified. 
Many doubtless borrowed money to exhibit at entry, and were 
otherwise improperly aided. Many also have had passports 
issued by the wrong official. Are these hundreds of thousands 
of cases to be systematically investigated after registration, and 
the unfortunates deported from this land of promise ? Let us 
pause before opening the door to such excessive zeal, or grave 
official corruption. 

But we are told the prime purpose is to aid in educating the 
aliens. What absurdity to have educational instruction, limited 
fo civics, conducted by the Immigration Bureau ! Its unsatis¬ 
factory work, even along these limited lines, was recently ex¬ 
posed in the valuable “Americanization Series,” issued by the 
Carnegie Corporation of New York, in the works on “Schooling 
of the Immigrant,” by F. V. Thompson and “Americans by 
Choice,” by J. P. Gavit. Education of the aliens is, of course, 
highly desirable, but the proper authorities for this are the local 
state officials, preferably aided by the United States Bureau of 
Education, not the Immigration Bureau. Such also was the 
theory of the able Kenyon Adult Education Subsidy Bill, which 
passed the United States Senate some years ago. And that 
would not be discriminatory against the alien, but cover the 
illiterate citizen, native as well as foreign-born, as well. Nearly 
two-thirds of our total American illiteracy, according to the 
census of 1920, is to be found among our white and negro native- 
born inhabitants, who are wholly outside the jurisdiction of the 
Immigration Bureau. Registration solely for the use of local or 
United States Bureau of Education officials would not be ob¬ 
jectionable, and the Government has such information now on 
the ships’ manifests, and can easily secure copies in convenient 
form, to be sent direct to the educational authorities. The Baron 

163 


de Hirsch Fund, of which I have the honor to be a trustee, is 
particularly interested in the subject of immigrant education. 
We did pioneer work, beginning over thirty years ago, in this 
field, and when we succeeded, turned our New York classes over 
to the Board of Education. People occasionally talk about the 
inability of their foreign-born parents to secure any adult educa¬ 
tional opportunities here decades ago, but they simply are blind 
to the enormous impetus given to immigrant education here 
during the past few decades, first by private charities like the 
Baron de Hirsch Fund, the Young Men’s Christian Association 
and similar bodies, latterly also by public agencies, especially 
through the report of the New York Immigration Commission 
appointed by Governor Hughes. And these, fortunately, are 
not, and should not be, limited to instruction in civics, with even 
the three R’s forgotten ! Moreover, we have, I think wisely, 
very materially raised the requisite educational standards for 
naturalization within recent years, but that is an entirely differ¬ 
ent question than to propose to prescribe often impossibly high 
educational requirements for the unnaturalized alien, particu¬ 
larly in the case of the adult woman immigrant. The illuminat¬ 
ing Senate debate on the Kenyon bill ably outlined these prob¬ 
lems. 

An argument was made here today in favor of registration on 
the basis of the speaker’s experience with registration for the 
draft in a New York East Side district, largely inhabited by 
recent immigrants; and on the score of his experience, he would 
deport all aliens who do not become naturalized or take out 
first papers promptly! But should we cheapen our American 
citizenship by forcing it upon residents, or conferring it upon 
the unqualified ? Strangely enough, it has been found that the 
English residents of our country are least disposed to be natur¬ 
alized here, the explanation being their greater attachment to 
their beloved and non-oppressing native land. But if the gentle¬ 
man had analyzed his figures, he would have observed that it 
was through no fault of their own that the bulk of these New 
York East Side registrants had not been naturalized. Many 
were not here the requisite length of time in this district of newly 
arrived immigrants. Many doubtless had not yet mastered 
English and other subjects to pass our naturalization tests. 
Many doubtless had not yet been able to send for their wives, 
and under a stupid rule of practice, married aliens with wives 

164 


abroad were refused naturalization in New York for that 
reason, while, on the other hand, it was often practically im¬ 
possible for their wives to join them, as long as the husbands 
were unnaturalized. 

Have these unnaturalized alien residents done nothing for us, 
economically or on the field of battle ? Economically, the il¬ 
literate is often more necessary for us than the literate, to do 
our crude labor. As to the latter, the records of the war speak 
loudly enough, and General Allen can give us first-hand infor¬ 
mation. 

Moreover, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! 
Would we sanction the violation of treaties involved in foreign 
laws, providing for deportation of our citizens remaining in 
foreign lands for some time, if they did not become naturalized 
there promptly ? What a large number of Americans reside 
abroad for reasons of business, or health, or missionary purposes, 
or pleasure, who have no desire to expatriate themselves, but are 
affirmatively permitted by treaty to secure protection as Ameri¬ 
can citizens ? As Henry James once jocosely said of his long 
residence abroad: He remained abroad for his country’s good! 

Other forms of registration are entirely different, such as those 
for election purposes, for education and even that for the draft. 
They are not discriminatory. They have no such penalty as 
deportation for default, but are commonly optional. They are 
not attended by heavy fees difficult for those at the bottom of 
the economic ladder to meet. They have no ulterior purpose. 
Possibly it may be intended to amend the pending bills by 
eliminating deportation as a penalty, for the present; but such 
measure would be the opening wedge, soon to be followed up by 
providing deportation, as is so frequently done, to make the 
measure “more effective.” Nor is it material that the present 
measure does not provide for more government inspectors; 
that can be done in the appropriation bills, which go through 
without scrutiny, and such government inspectors will enforce 
the law, after innocent state officials, for instance, attend to 
the registration. 

In short, educational opportunity is no excuse for this danger¬ 
ous registration scheme, and President Roosevelt’s memorable 
words, in his famous Presidential message of 1906, quoted by 
me as part of yesterday’s proceedings, strongly indict such dis¬ 
criminatory, humiliating and oppressive measure. 

165 


Mrs. William Cumming Story , of the Daughters of the American Revolution. 

Mrs. William C. Story: I am very appreciative of the 
privilege of being permitted to raise my voice today. You are 
not in need of statistics. You have had a wealth of statistics 
and technical information, and these conferences should be of 
immense value in the important issue that you are considering. 

I have had very strongly the feeling that we have heard from 
the representatives of different countries who have at heart the 
one controlling desire to do for their people, to place their 
people here in the United States, and have been largely governed 
by that feeling. I have had the feeling that we have heard from 
interests that were deeply affected by the limited immigration 
or the large immigration. I have had the feeling that we have 
not perhaps heard as much as I would like to hear from those 
who have only the thought of what is best for our country in 
their minds. 

It seems to me that the immense prosperity, the immense 
success that we have achieved, which is the inducement of im¬ 
migration to most people, would justify faith and loyalty to our 
country. I may name an experience that I had while I was act¬ 
ing with the Daughters of the American Revolution, if I may 
be permitted to speak in a rather personal way. I circulated 
through our membership of some 135,000 women thousands of 
little pledges of loyalty, and I asked these women, in a quiet 
way, without publicity, to secure the pledges of the foreign 
element in their location. I had in my hands thousands of 
records of the loyalty of people in our country, and there were 
some that were here enjoying the privileges but not willing to 
pledge absolute loyalty. 

I do feel deeply the necessity for selective immigration; not 
only the physical and mental requirements of a good man, a 
good citizen, but the spiritual sense of the individual should come 
importantly into it. We cannot be too careful absolutely to 
restrict the entry of foreigners into this country, assuring our¬ 
selves of their loyalty, their fitness and their absolute de¬ 
sirability.' 

I am not speaking for an organization. I am speaking as an 
American of many generations, and I do represent the spirit of 
the Board of the Allied Patriotic Societies, an organization of 
which I have the honor of being a member. 

I feel that perhaps the Johnson Bill is as good a measure as 
166 


we could have at this time. I am very, very strongly for se¬ 
lective immigration, the limiting of immigration to the right 
kind of people who will be good Americans. The country is 
good enough to come to; it is good enough to stand by and 
believe in. 

We have heard so much of eloquence—and a little bit of 
sophistry, if I may say so—of the separation of families. Every¬ 
body must deplore the separation, the unnatural separation, but 
it is the man himself who has brought about that separation 
by leaving his family and coming to another land. We must not 
forget real conditions in our sentimental interest and apprecia¬ 
tion of the hardships of these people. Perhaps their hardships 
will not be so great if we are not so overcrowded. Perhaps the 
congestion in the tenements that were referred to yesterday 
with so much feeling will not be so great, so terrible, if there is a 
wise, a fair, a judicious limit. j 

Chairman Brady: We want to thank Mrs. Story for call¬ 
ing our attention to a very important problem for all of us to 
seriously think about. Overcrowding is one question that we 
all deplore, but those of you who have traveled over these 
United States and seen vast areas of territory yet unoccupied, 
and then get into your congested centers where people are 
crowded—according to the revelations in one of our daily news¬ 
papers, twelve, fifteen, and twenty in one, two or three rooms— 
realize that there is something wrong with our attention to the 
foreign-born who have recently come to our land. If we would 
take more pains to open their visions to the opportunities that 
are within our gates after they arrive, there would be less of this 
arid and waste territory that there is now in the United States. 
Immigrants would be raising healthy families to become good 
citizens, as they have done where they have colonized in several 
states. 

I think one of the cures for the serious misgiving that all of us 
have about opening our doors wide to let in everybody, would be 
to have as a condition of coming into these states of ours, that 
each alien either on his arrival or within a stated period there¬ 
after were required to come forward and recite the Constitution 
and explain what it means. 

Now, I am not so fussy in the beginning as to whether that 
shall be done in the American language or done in the language 

167 


of the foreign-born at the first examination, but I am very fussy 
that they shall understand the customs of this country, and in 
order to do so, the foundation and the beginning rests in an 
understanding of the Constitution itself and the causes that 
created that document. If they start from that point, I think 
we would have little difficulty in the future with our foreign- 
born element within these United States of ours. 

Mr. Charles Cheney, of Cheney Bros., South Manchester, Conn., 
representing the Silk Association of America. 

Mr. Charles Cheney: I want to talk to the first three sec¬ 
tions/^,” “b”!and“c,”becausel think they belongin one bracket: 

“Shall a Federal Immigration Board be created to regulate 
the flow of immigration to the United States under whatever 
immigration law is in effect ?” 

I am constitutionally opposed to all boards. I am sick of 
them. I don’t want any new ones. But I am not opposed to 
taking the government employees and officials whom we now 
have and directing them to cooperate together intelligently in 
their work. So I would say that it was a highly desirable thing 
to have the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Secretary of Commerce cooperate in some methodical 
way in connection with the regulation of the immigration into 
this country, provided that we introduce in our immigration 
system some degree of elasticity so that they will have some¬ 
thing to meet and confer about. 

“Shall the Canadian system of selective immigration be 
given a trial in the United States ?” 

I don’t know much about the technique of the Canadian 
system. I have read it, but I wouldn’t go into the technique of 
it. Broadly speaking, the Canadian system is a selective sys¬ 
tem, it is an elastic system, it is a method of seeking out the 
kind of immigrants which are required and inducing them to 
come. I am highly in favor of the introduction of some such 
practice into our immigration machinery. I do not believe at 
all that this thing should be done either on a hit-or-miss, wide- 
open policy, or that we should depend simply upon automatic 
restriction, letting people come at will, practically, as we do 
now, without some intelligent thought and follow-up of the 
plan. I think our law as it is now is altogether too cut and 
dried, too hard and fast, too inelastic, too ill-adapted to meet 
the things which we are all looking to it to give us. 

168 


“Shall the contract labor law be modified, and if so, in what 
respect ?” 

I want to couple this very closely with the thing I have just 
been speaking about. I don’t think I have ever imported a con¬ 
tract laborer. I don’t think I want to. I did bring in one man 
who, under any interpretation of the law, would be admissible, 
a highly paid superintendent, a manager of a department. 
After five years, I was glad to get rid of him and have him go 
back again. I only say that to clear the impression in your 
minds that I am going to argue in favor of something which will 
let me bring in a lot of people. I am not. But I do believe that 
the way should be open to go and find the kind of people we 
want, the kind of people we need, and to bring them in here 
with an assurance of employment rather than to be forced to the 
alternative (you haven’t forgotten what I said yesterday about 
not thinking that we needed a great many anyway) that the 
Assistant Secretary of Labor told us of yesterday, of going down 
to Ellis Island and spending a week there and finding that, of 
the whole flow of immigrants that came through the week, there 
were less than 5% suitable for employment. 

That would not have happened if that man and other men like 
him had gone out intelligently to the field, to the source of 
supply and selected the kind of men he wanted, and brought 
them here with their job already waiting for them. Then we 
wouldn’t have had that 95% of waifs and strays and offcasts 
and undesirables whom he didn’t want to employ. 

We have heard a whole lot of talk here about selective immi¬ 
gration. It is an easy thing to say. It sounds fine. Pretty 
nearly everybody that has come here has advocated it. Now 
what does it mean ? We already have certain qualifications, 
very simple, as to physical condition, mental condition, moral 
qualifications, past record. No one is questioning these. Of 
course they must stand; they must be perfected; they must go 
on. But when we get aside from those simple things which 
have been adopted by common consent for years and try to 
follow the idea a little farther to select aliens on the basis of their 
desirability, no one yet has attempted on this platform to say 
how to do it. No one yet has said what kind he wants for the 
very good reason that he doesn’t want the same kind all the 
time. I do not know any way to create and construct a formula 
for a good man. It is nonsense. But every employer of labor 

169 


does know what kind of men he wants at a time and he knows 
how to go and select them. 

We must have selective immigration and that is the way to 
do it. I am going to go ahead anyway and say this: You don't 
want two kinds of limitation. If you are going to set up limita¬ 
tion by numbers or by quota to prevent manufacturers or em¬ 
ployers whom you may fancy want to flood your market with 
labor, establish that limitation, tell how many they can bring 
in; but after you have prevented them from bringing them in, 
don’t prevent them from going and inviting them. Have one 
or the other. Stop us from finding the right kind and then let 
us bring them in such numbers as are needed, or say how many 
we can bring and let us bring the right ones. 

The Reverend Kenneth D. Miller , of the Board of National Missions of 
the Presbyterian Church. 

Dr. Miller: I represent here today the Presbyterian 
Church of the United States of America, as it reaches out into 
our cities and industrial communities, through its National 
Board. Our task as a church, as we face this problem, is that of 
interpreting America to the immigrants as they come in here 
and settle within our borders; and later of interpreting the im¬ 
migrants to the old American stock, in some way getting both 
the old stock and the new stock working together cooperatively 
towards the building of a better and a more Christian nation. 

I want particularly in the few moments that I have to ad¬ 
dress myself to the question of registration, simply because it 
gives me an opportunity to illustrate a principle which I think 
we should bear in mind in our discussion of this whole question 
in its various aspects. 

In the discussion which has taken place here too much atten¬ 
tion has been devoted to what the immigrant has done, is doing 
or may do in the future to America, and too little attention has 
been paid to the question of what America has done, is doing 
and may do to the immigrant as he comes into our shores. 
That latter question is important not only to the immigrant 
himself, but it is important to us who are anxious for the future 
welfare of our country, because if we are to build here in the 
United States of America the sort of a national life that we 
wish to build, we must make of those who come here to join with 
us in this great experiment, in this wonderful experiment, men 

170 


and women who are sympathetic to our ideals, who understand 
our ideals and our aims. I am very much afraid that the pro¬ 
posal for registration of aliens will defeat the very purpose which 
apparently the Department of Labor has in mind. 

From our own knowledge of the immigrant’s reaction to the 
Government and to various laws which have been proposed 
and to the way in which they have been carried out, I fear that 
this proposal will only result in misunderstanding of our great 
Government, in fear and in suspicion. 

We want our immigrants to feel at home here in America and 
we want them to understand and to appreciate the great aims 
and ideals of the American Government and of the American 
people. I feel very strongly that the net result of such a pro¬ 
posal as this will be the same as the general net result of a great 
deal of legislation concerning aliens which has been passed dur¬ 
ing the last four or five years. The legislation which has been 
passed enforcing the use of the English language or enforcing 
the disuse of foreign languages in schools or in meetings, or 
discriminating against the foreign press, or all of those move¬ 
ments and laws which have aimed to Americanize the alien 
quickly and superficially, have had just the opposite result and 
have rather alienated the alien and made him misunderstand 
us and throw him out of sympathy with us. I fear that this 
legislation will have exactly the same effect. Personally, my 
own experience testifies that the aliens here in this country were 
much more sympathetic to the American Government and to 
the American ideals and institutions, and to that larger ideal 
which we generally call Americanization, before the so-called 
Americanization movement began than they are today. 

The net result of a great deal of activities that we have car¬ 
ried on is to draw the alien farther away, rather than to bring 
him nearer to us, and it is because we wish to avoid any 
repetition of that situation that I, for one, am very fearful 
of the results of this proposal. 

With regard to the proposal concerning settling in large cities, 
of course, it is impossible, and not only is it impossible, but there 
is a motive or a philosophy lying back of that question which 
seems to me to be fundamentally unjust. Fellow Americans, 
let us not put all of the blame on the immigrant for the social 
and economic conditions which exist in this country. Let’s 
take our own fair share ourselves and let us also place a fair 

171 


share of the responsibility upon the great economic and social 
movements which are sweeping this country and every other 
country. The movement from the country to the city is not 
due entirely to immigration or chiefly to immigration, but 
exists in countries where there is no immigration whatsoever 
and is due to the springing up in this country and throughout 
the world of the great industrial system which has revolution¬ 
ized society and the economic world. 

Let us take our responsibility upon ourselves and when we 
are speaking about this whole problem, rededicate ourselves to 
the task of building a better and a purer America and see to it 
that those immigrants who do come here, under whatever law 
they come, see the best that there is in American life and not 
the worst. 

Mr. C. E. Bennett , Director of Adult Elementary Education, 
Schenectady, New York. 

Mr. C. E. Bennett: I am not going to discuss the merits 
or demerits of registering immigrants, but I am very much op¬ 
posed to a large registration fee, for the following reasons: 

1. Aliens will be likely to attempt to become citizens merely 
to avoid the fee and not because they have a burning desire to 
enter our body politic. 

2. A fund that will be created by a large fee might become a 
menace. 

Whatever registration fee is exacted from the alien, it should 
not be given to any federal organization or department, but to 
the locality, and it should be used to finance the registration and 
for educational purposes. 

The institution that should conduct the registration of aliens 
should be one that will be (a) impartial, (b) non-partisan, 
(c) have no commercial aims and (d) one that has the con¬ 
fidence of the aliens. 

The institution that meets these requirements more nearly 
than any other is the public school. Therefore, the public 
school is the only institution that should conduct the registra¬ 
tion of aliens. 

Miss Florence Cassidy , Executive Secretary of the International Institute 
of the Y. W. C. A. in Bridgeport, Conn. 

Miss Florence Cassidy: I wish to speak on the question 
of registration and to raise certain questions ori this matter, as 

172 


it looks to us through our own particular knothole, without 
imputing anything but the best motives to those who favor the 
plan and to those who would have charge of enforcing it if it 
becomes a law. We are opposed to compulsory registration or 
enrollment for the following reasons: 

It seems to us that this would be interpreted by the foreign- 
born as being distinctly militaristic. It makes no difference 
whether the people who are backing it are firm in the assertion 
that it is not militaristic. We have to face quite promptly the 
fact that it might be so interpreted by the foreign-born, many of 
whom have come to this country especially to escape that sort 
of thing. This failure to enroll—and we are quite sure that 
there would be numerous cases of failure—would make the 
immigrant a criminal for an entirely new offense m our history, 
and it seems to us that it would be very, very easy for the immi¬ 
grant to be arrested for failure to comply with this law through 
no criminal intention on his own part. It would be extremely 
easy to lose one of the registration cards, and in order to keep 
the records up to date, it would be necessary to have a very 
elaborate machinery devised, due to the frequent changing of 
addresses on the part of immigrants and their lack of knowledge 
that they should report change of address. We do not believe 
that this law could be properly carried out by the present staff 
of officials, whether the enforcement is lodged in the state edu¬ 
cational authority, in the state or municipal local officers, or in 
the federal immigration service. It means that theie : s a tre¬ 
mendous amount of detail work that will have to be done and 
that a whole corps of new officials would have to be mustered 
into service. 

These, however, are minor objections, compared with the 
fact that if registration is tied up with the work of the Depart¬ 
ment of Education, it will create a feeling against the Depart¬ 
ment of Education. The great success of our night schools at 
present is due to the fact that the immigrants come of their 
own volition; that they are coming there to learn something that 
they want to know. Although it may have been true in the 
days when the father of the present Secretary of Labor came to 
this country that he didn’t have any opportunity to know of 
our night schools, that argument is not so potent today, because 
through the great cooperation of factory owners, of foreign 
language newspapers and the foreign language press, knowledge 

173 


is being spread of the existence of these public schools, so that 
an immigrant who really wants to learn the language has an 
opportunity to come. 

Furthermore, we are opposed to registration because we think 
that the tendency would be to hasten naturalization among 
larger numbers of people who would rather be naturalized 
willy-nilly than pay the expense of registration, and we would 
have introduced into our population citizens who were natural¬ 
ized from motives that we would deplore. 

We wish people to be naturalized because they want to be- 
become American citizens and for no other reason. It has been 
said this morning that the idea is that they should be Americans 
first and naturalized afterwards. That takes time for education 
and it takes a willingness, a desire to be an American citizen. 
We all know that throughout this country there is great differ¬ 
ence among judges and among naturalization inspectors regard¬ 
ing the amount of educational background that an alien has to 
have before he becomes an American citizen. In some sections 
of the country an alien is asked so many questions and is put 
through such a difficult examination that when he is finally 
admitted as an American citizen he is qualified to be an in¬ 
telligent voter; but we also know that that is not the case the 
country over. Since this is federal legislation they are proposing, 
it would be necessary to bear that thing in mind. 

Lastly, we are opposed to the law because we feel that the 
argument that it would help in detecting the criminal and the 
so-called dangerous radical is a very poor argument, because 
this class of person could very easily evade the law by register¬ 
ing under a false name. 

Mr. Giuseppe Vitelli, representing the Italian Chamber of Commerce in 

New York City, presented the following statement on the questions 
under discussion at this session: 

III. a. If any new immigration law is enacted, it should be 
based upon the actual needs of the country and upon the social 
necessities of residents here. It should contain such provisions 
as to enable an adequate supply of workmen in the industries 
where they are mostly needed. That the workman admitted 
is fitted for the specialized work for which he is required and for 
which there is urgent need at this time, should be ascertained 
by a competent commission in which the principal lines of 

174 


national economy, such as agriculture, industry, commerce and 
labor, should be equally represented. 

This Chamber is not averse to the enactment of special legis¬ 
lation to assure better distribution of alien immigrants as sug¬ 
gested by the consideration of the following items: 

b. Canada is following a liberal policy of practically selective 
immigration in cooperation with foreign countries and is meeting 
with success. That country is extending, not restricting immi¬ 
gration. Her selective system is being extended by arrangement 
with foreign governments and might be tried even in this 
country with success. 

c. The contract labor law should be so modified that it 
could be made to supply the necessary labor in this country to 
those industries in which there is an absolute need of help. 

d. The illiteracy law should not be modified, except perhaps 
in so far as necessary to allow for the admission of certain classes 
of labor needed. 

e. There can be no objection to a system of registration, 
provided that it does not contemplate any undue annoyance to 
the immigrant. 

f. The condition referred to under this paragraph would be 
asking too much of the average emigrant and from most coun¬ 
tries outside of the English-speaking—would amount to a pro¬ 
hibition of immigration, and therefore to a discriminatory act. 
As far as understanding American institutions is concerned, 
this can be and should be done after the immigrant’s residence 
here and his association with them. 

g. Immigrants should be discouraged, as far as possible, 
from settling in very crowded cities. They should be dispatched 
to those parts of the country where their labor and work is re¬ 
quired and mostly needed, and they should not be permitted 
to crowd already congested districts of our cities. 

h. The tests referred to under this paragraph have yet to 
prove their unquestionable value, and should be discarded until 
their absolute worth is proven beyond question. 

Adjournment 


175 


LUNCHEON MEETING 
December 14, 1923 


Chairman Brady introduced as the speaker of the luncheon Major 
General Henry T. Allen , who was Commander-in-Chief of the 
Army of Occupation. 

General Allen: I am going to make bold enough, as a 
layman, following the policy of contrariness, to talk to you to¬ 
day about a subject which has not been under consideration by 
you during these past days. Only a few days since, I received a 
communication from a man of great achievement, a lawyer from 
one of our most thrifty and prosperous cities in the world, a 
man with financial tendencies, and yet he told me that in one 
month Germany had shipped funds and securities out of her 
domains amounting to ninety billion dollars. Another occasion 
more recent than that was a conversation with a New York 
banker who said that he could straighten out the German situa¬ 
tion very well, if he had the opportunity. Naturally, I was 
interested to know how that could be done, because it had been 
the subject of great consideration on the part of much wisdom 
for the last four years. 

He replied in all seriousness that he would first balance the 
budget, which was essential. Then he would get a foreign loan, 
which also was essential. How simple! And how remarkable 
that no one had thought of that before! He did not even men¬ 
tion a moratorium. 

As a military man, and I have almost forgotten that I was 
one, I am naturally interested in manpower, and manpower 
is but a phase of citizenship which, after all, is at the heart of 
this vital question of immigration. 

I understand that in the discussions which have already taken 
place at this National Immigration Conference, there have been, 
as might have been expected amongst thinking people, many 
differences in respect to the policy that the United States should 
follow, but you all have pretty much come to an agreement that 
the principal consideration is citizenship. 

The immigration problem is more than an economical or 
sociological one. It is also a political one. It is a question in- 

176 


volving the commingling of the Old World and the New World, 
their racial, cultural and geographical backgrounds. The immi¬ 
gration problem is indeed one of the essentially great questions 
of the future of the United States. It speaks well for the future 
that such a body as this, wholly free from supervision, should 
meet to consider matters of such importance, and I have no 
doubt that your decision will have important bearing in in¬ 
fluencing the governmental as well as public opinion. In fact, it 
seems to me that it would be of the greatest importance that 
the major questions confronting this country should be dis¬ 
cussed in a similar manner. This conference cannot fail to be 
helpful and play an important part in public welfare. It is a 
fact that the Government is also interested in getting a compo¬ 
site opinion such as you are able and will doubtless give. 

You are acquainted with the fact, too, that the financial re¬ 
turns from their immigrants in the United States constitute one 
of the chief capital resources of certain countries in the south 
and southeastern parts of Europe. 

The charts which you have seen show from what places 
our immigration comes, and to what parts of the country it 
goes. They also clearly show the numbers and nationalities 
and destinations. Evidently the northern races, by and large, 
furnish us with what is generally considered the most desirable 
class of people for our country, but let me assure you that the 
southern clime not only furnishes valuable citizens, but also 
valuable soldiers. One of the noblest exploits during the Great 
War that fell within my command was performed by a partially 
naturalized American. When he was called to headquarters to 
receive personal commendation, I expected to see a long-limbed 
Texan or Oklahoman, with a name like Fisher or Allen. But, 
on the contrary, it was Spaghetti or Aspigliosi, or some name of 
that kind, and he was barely able to tell me about his exploit 
in the language of his adopted country. 

The determination of the character of immigration, even as 
to racial or state discrimination, is a sovereign right that has 
been practiced at all times. The state must, for political, eco¬ 
nomic and industrial reasons, as well as for its general welfare, 
be accorded such a right. Modern history is full of such examples 
of the exercise of that right. Japan, it may not be generally 
known, discriminates against Chinese immigration, just as 
Turkey discriminated against the influence of the immigration, 

177 


of, or rather the exercise of that privilege by, her neighboring 
states, Greece and Armenia. 

Whether our country should have a flexible law, permitting 
the President to enlarge or restrict immigration of certain 
classes, to meet conditions local or general, and whether this 
percentage should be fixed as at present, or some other adopted, 
are undoubtedly questions which have fallen within the purview 
of your thoughts. 

Perhaps the most potent document drawn up by man within 
the past one hundred years in its destructive effect upon the 
economic equilibrium of Europe was the Treaty of Versailles. 
If not within the province of that treaty, at least by reason of it, 
we find the richest and most highly industrialized part of Ger¬ 
many being snatched from the economic structure of the 
Rhine, and we also find that 1,400,000 are unemployed in Eng¬ 
land, largely as a result of that document. 

It is inevitable that Germany must again renew her exporta¬ 
tion of human beings as she did in the eighties. Perhaps unless 
her population is reduced by many thousands of immigrants, 
Great Britain also must seek some other field for her surplus 
population, and thus we continue to see the unfortunate results 
of the excessive time consecrated to drawing up the Paris docu¬ 
ment where too much effort was expended in painting the racial 
lily and refining political and ethnographic gold rather than 
forging the economic products that were and are essential to 
Europe. 

As I conceive it, this whole problem of immigration is of para¬ 
mount importance to our country. It is not local, it is not 
national. It is truly an international question and involves so 
many interests that I do not doubt that that your opinions, 
formulated as they will be, after due consideration and a careful 
study of all these economic, industrial and political considera¬ 
tions, will be of inestimable value not only to the Government, 
but to the people of the United States. 


178 


VI 

FRIDAY AFTERNOON SESSION 
December 14, 1923 

The meeting convened at 2:20 P. M. } Prof. Samuel McCune Lindsay 
of Columbia University , presiding. 

The Chairman stated that the first hour of the afternoon session would 
be devoted to the suggestions under topic III, namely, e< Shall special legis¬ 
lation be enacted to secure better selection, distribution and assimilation 
of alien immigrants ?” 

The first speaker was Mr. Morris E. Siegel, Director of Evening Schools 
of the Board of Education , New York City. 

Mr. M. E. Siegel: I represent the school system of New 
York City, and as one of the specially interested representatives 
mentioned before, we have certain problems. We have in our 
schools a large number of immigrants, probably 60,000, receiv¬ 
ing instruction in English, and as Director, I am confronted 
with two problems. 

First of all, we find that the process of naturalization is not 
so attractive (I don’t want to say easy), not so dignified as 
it should be, and I would recommend that some action towards 
dignifying the process of naturalization and unifying it be 
adopted. 

One important thing that was shown by the literacy test for 
new voters in New York State recently is the large number of 
first voters who cannot read or write. There is something wrong 
with our immigration method, our naturalization procedure, 
when a man is ready to vote for the first time and cannot do so 
because he cannot read and write. So I would strongly urge 
this conference to take some action towards dignifying the proc¬ 
ess and unifying it throughout the various states. 

The second relates to a problem of finance. The Board of 
Education of New York City expends $600,000 for immigrant 
education. We are a port of entry and we have many people 
here who do not make New York City their home, but still we 
must pay the entire cost of schooling these immigrants in our 
night schools. I would therefore recommend, in connection with 
one of your questions, that federal aid along the lines of the 
Smith-Hughes Law be extended to municipalities in connection 
with immigrant education. 


179 


The third point I would make is this. I have had twenty 
years of experience in the Department, and in enforcing all 
sorts of laws of compulsion or coercion which the legislators 
and others who have power to pass such laws have put into ef¬ 
fect, and I have found it is a difficult thing to enforce laws which 
are easily passed. Before you pass compulsory laws relating 
to immigrant education, please study the effects of existing com¬ 
pulsory laws. Our present night schools are attended vol¬ 
untarily in 99% of the cases. It is difficult to enforce compulsion 
for night schools. In the related problem of part-time educa¬ 
tion for young workers, we have a compulsory law, and although 
that is day-time work, it is difficult to enforce it. We try 
as far as possible to put it on a voluntary basis. This last, of 
course, is more of a request to be easy with us who have to 
enforce the laws. 

Etta V. Leighton , Civic Secretary of the National Security League. 

Etta V. Leighton: Perhaps I ought to give you a basis 
for my opinion on the two questions on which I shall speak 
briefly. I have had many years of educational and social service 
with thirty-nine nationalities and have trained teachers to do 
Americanization work, giving them college courses. At the 
present time I am in touch with all of the Americanization work 
done throughout the country, through my students who are 
supervisors, or workers, and through my own personal investiga¬ 
tion. I know from personal observation what the homeland of 
the majority of our immigrants is, and I know from personal 
observation their present living conditions. It is on that infor¬ 
mation that I base the opinion I want to give you for myself 
and for the National Security League on the question “Shall a 
system of registration of alien immigrants be put into effect, 
and, if so, what form shall it take ?” 

There seems to be a feeling that registration is going to make 
the alien feel unhappy and therefore interferes with assimilation. 
I had proposed to tell you that we all have to register, and on the 
question of its being irksome to register, I think I can testify 
for all women that we find it a little bit irksome. Still we feel 
that this registration that we have to go through with does not 
hurt us. I have worked hard with the immigrant, up to two 
and three o’clock mornings for years, working to help people 
to become citizens, and I say that registration would be as good 

180 


for the alien as it would be for us. As to the form, I think we 
need nothing very much beyond what is asked of every voter 
and every taxpayer. But I do think this, and I know that the 
National Security League will agree with me, that if there is any 
fee for registration, it should be a very nominal fee. There 
should be no high taxation put on the registration, and so make 
the immigrant feel that he is being exploited in that particular. 

The only other question I shall mention is, “Shall a limited 
educational test in respect to ability to speak and write English 
and understand American institutions be required ?” I would 
stop there and emphasize “understand American institutions,” 
because we know that, although the citizenship test requires the 
ability to speak English and to understand the Constitution of 
the United States, that citizenship test has been rather poorly 
enforced, owing, I suppose, to conditions that we couldn’t help. 
The National Security League is doing its best to make all of us 
Americanized Americans, make us all understand the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States, which is fundamental to citizenship, 
and I think fundamental to comfortable living in this country 
of those who do not become citizens. To that end we have had 
passed a law which makes study of the Constitution compulsory 
in the schools of twenty-seven states, and we are going to keep 
going until we have it in forty-nine; but it cannot be done 
unless we understand English, so we are working very hard to 
help people to learn English. My own native state, Rhode 
Island, than which there could be nothing freer in the world, 
has a law which requires that everybody who comes into the 
state and does not know English, shall, if he is under twenty-one 
be required to attend classes. I feel that there is some way of 
asking those who come among us, within a reasonable length 
of time, to acquire sufficient knowledge of the English language 
to understand what is said to them, and to understand our in¬ 
stitutions. 

As far as you have a feeling in your heart for the immigrant 
in our midst, and I think we all have, you want to realize that 
enforcing those two things (registering him would protect him 
in so many ways I haven’t time to tell you about), and forcing 
him, if you want to use that word (I say helping him) to learn 
English, are two of the things that we must do if we are going 
to continue to uphold the American square deal. 


181 


Mr. James A. Emery , of the National Manufacturers' Association. 

Mr. J. A. Emery: I desire representatively to respond to the 
questions under Question III. 

The first question is: “Shall a Federal Immigration Board 
be created to regulate the flow of immigration to the United 
States under whatever immigration law is in effect ?” 

It appears impossible to apply any sufficient flexibility to 
administration without the intervention of a responsible, de¬ 
liberate and representative board. Under the circumstances of 
our life, agriculture, commerce and labor may be said to be the 
primary parties interested in the economic aspects of legislation. 
The character of your restriction and of your selection is, of 
course, to depend upon the purpose which you have in mind. 
You may set up qualitative tests to determine the social admis¬ 
sibility of the immigrant, and within the limitations of those tests, 
to admit only what we need, when we need them. But such 
limitation cannot be enforced by the publication of progressive 
information unless the machinery is set up to acquire the infor¬ 
mation and progressively to apply it to the changing circum¬ 
stances of American life. So we shall have the means through 
which to meet the demonstrated economic needs of the United 
States in terms of socially desirable additions to our population, 
that we may fulfill the test laid down by the fathers of the 
American Constitution. James Madison, in the first report on 
immigration, made to the American Congress, said: “We wel¬ 
come every man of good repute who really wants to incorporate 
himself into our society, and reject all who are not a real addition 
to the wealth and strength of the United States.’' 

When we ask: “Shall the Canadian system of immigration 
be given a trial?” we are really asking: “Do we want a flexible 
administrative system ?” There are limitations in our form of 
government that do not permit the same liberality of adminis¬ 
tration that applies in Canada through Orders in Council, but 
it is quite within the power of Congress to determine the stand¬ 
ard of admissibility, and having determined the standard, to 
set up the administrative machinery to apply the tests laid down 
by the legislative body, and thus control not only the circum¬ 
stances under which men may be admitted, but the circum¬ 
stances under which admission may be denied, from the economic 
or the social standpoint, either occupationally or personally. 

182 


“Shall the contract labor law be modified, and if so, in what 
respects ?” 

There appears to be a prevailing impression that under the 
contract labor law there has been a very considerable number, 
perhaps thousands, of admissions to the United States during 
the ten years that that law has been in operation. I beg to call 
your attention to the statement of the present House Committee 
on Immigration, made by Mr. Johnson in reporting the original 
Johnson bill of Februaiy 9, 1923. He made the following re¬ 
mark: “Examination at the Department of Labor by members 
of the Committee shows that so few skilled laborers have been 
admitted within the past ten years on account of the provisions 
of the contract sections of the Immigration Law, that no statis¬ 
tical records have been kept.” 

There is naturally a considerable amount of prejudice against 
the use of the contract labor law, unless one realizes the valuable 
considerations in its use. If it be determined that there is an 
economic necessity for the admission of labor not found unem¬ 
ployed in the United States, then either permission must be 
given for the entrance of such labor otherwise socially admis¬ 
sible, or we must deny ourselves the filling of our need and 
accept the economic consequences of our conduct. 

The contract labor law in its original suggestion had at least 
an excellent origin. If you care to read the message of Abraham 
Lincoln to the Congress of the United States in December, 
1862, you will learn the circumstances under which it came into 
being. 

“Shall the illiteracy law be modified, and, if so, in what 
respects ?” 

The value of the illiteracy law is debatable. It was offered 
merely as a means of limiting a particular kind of immigration. 
There has been no evidence that the application of the literacy 
test has involved any considerable difficulty on the part of those 
most reprehensible agitators in our political and social life who 
have easily passed its provisions. It is quite possible that a 
highly desirable and hard working citizen, potential citizen, 
may be denied admission, but it would never keep out either a 
Lenin or a Trotzky. 

“Shall a system of registration of alien immigrants be put 
into effect and, if so, what form shall it take ?” 

183 


I have listened to discussions on registration this morning, 
proceeding, on the part of its critics, apparently from a very ex¬ 
treme view of the form which the law should take, or the penal¬ 
ties which should be invoked, or the purpose which lies behind 
it. As to the right of a nation, in the interest of self-protection, 
to insist upon knowing the number, names and location of all 
its alien inhabitants, there can be no question. As a necessary 
measure in the past war, we had to inform ourselves of who were 
our aliens, and not only did many of them suffer an undue hard¬ 
ship, but many persons were subjected to inconvenience, which 
would have been entirely relieved had there been anything like 
a systematic registration of the alien inhabitants of the United 
States. 

Furthermore, if we are to identify the alien, if we are to aid 
him by persuasive and intelligent information to be the basis of 
di^tiibution into the places where opportunities are best open 
to him, after such information has been obtained by cooperation 
between the Federal and State Governments and private organ¬ 
izations within these localities themselves, then registration is 
essential if information is to be transmitted and contact is to 
be maintained with the alien for the purpose of instruction, 
assistance and suggestion. 

Any small system of fee registration will provide the easy 
means for the enforcement of the law without additional charge 
upon the Treasury. I should have no patience with any system 
of registration that was intended merely to be a part of a great 
police system of espionage. I do not think that is in the minds 
of those who have suggested it today, but rather that it has been 
regarded as an indispensable part of maintaining contact with, 
and information with respect to the largest alien population that 
any nation permits to settle in its midst. 

As to the other question—whether the alien immigrant is to 
be prohibited for a limited period in the settling of cities— 
that is a question which involves such obvious administrative 
difficulties that it seems impractical to put such a plan into 
execution. 

As to blood and intelligence tests to be applied to alien immi¬ 
grants, it should be remembered that there is in the present state 
of the law, because the quota act is founded upon the act of 
1917, no limitation upon the practical tests for the purpose of 
the administration of the law which the marine hospital service, 

184 


as the medical administrators of the act, may apply. So long 
as the tests are deemed practical by them and have demon¬ 
strated value in enforcing their duties under the law, they may 
be applied without question, and there is no limitation upon 
their nature. 

Just to return an instant to the value of a central commission 
of administration, I share entirely the views of those who do 
not desire to see the creation of new boards and commissions 
with additional expense. That objection, however, would not 
apply to the final determination, subject to the qualitative tests 
adopted, of the application of the contract labor law in the one 
instance, or the denial of admission in response to a lessened 
economic demand in the other, through an administrative board 
the character of which would check and balance one of the 
represented interests against every other, and would supply 
the final means by which cabinet officers of high responsibility, 
after the obtainment of progressive information, would make 
their recommendations to the Chief Executive, and thus estab¬ 
lish the means of providing for the most flexible admission in 
the light of our social and economic requirements. 

Let us finally remember that these wants vary. The biennial 
Census of Manufactures in 1921, not yet finally published, gives 
an excellent illustration of that, and answers the question of 
what is the potential capacity of American industry presently 
employed. It shows us that on returns from 353 industries, 
194,000 establishments, representing 97% of the manufacturing 
capacity of the United States, but 56.8% of its potential 
capacity was actually employed in 1921—an off year, it is true, 
but nevertheless illustrative of the fact that the elasticity of 
economic change requires some adaption to the changing cir¬ 
cumstances of economic need of any supplemental force that 
is to be admitted, when otherwise socially desirable. 

Let us remember, finally, that all cannot be done by legisla¬ 
tion. It is citizens who must perform their function. It is em¬ 
ployers who must meet their obligation. It is the alien who must 
answer for the privilege of admission into the United States by 
an endeavor to become a worthy member of the society in which 
he desires or should desire to incorporate himself. Any judge 
can naturalize a man, but only the people among whom he lives 
can make of him an American. 


185 


Mr. Robert C. Deming, representing the State Board of Education of 
Hartford , Conn. 

Mr. R. C. Deming: As secretary of the Department of 
Immigrant Education of the National Education Association, 
and chairman of a committee on the subject of the registration 
of aliens, we have given that subject much thought. To date, 
we have been against the registration of aliens under the schemes 
heretofore broached. Whatever I say this afternoon is not 
from a referendum to my State Board of Education. It is my 
own contribution. 

William Roscoe Thayer stated that the immigration problem 
all boiled down to this: We will not have a satisfactory solution 
of the immigration problem until we have at the head of our 
government men who combine two things: A scientific and 
exact knowledge, first, of immigration conditions, and secondly, 
of the ideals for which this country stands. They must combine 
these two things. 

If we have a registration of aliens, there are two great dangers. 
I am in favor of registration, but if it is with a system of fees, 
and a registration based on citizenship, I am against it. 
Anything that cheapens citizenship and makes it cheaper for an 
alien to be a citizen than to remain an alien, cheapens citizen¬ 
ship. We all agree on that. If there is no fee, I am not particu¬ 
larly opposed to it. 

If registration is based on education, I am in favor of it. 
It is just as foolish to talk of making citizens through compulsory 
registration with a fee, as to say that nobody should become a 
member of a church until he registers yearly and admits that 
he has religion. Education is a different matter. 

The other danger is that if you have an enforcement system, 
something similar to our prohibition enforcement system, prob¬ 
ably not under the civil service, the field is open for anything. 
I should think that we would all be against that. 

And now for the contribution that I think may possibly dodge 
some of these dangers. A year in advance, appoint or name a 
week upon which all aliens will be asked to register without 
compulsion, with due publicity through the foreign language 
press and the native press and every possible source, stating 
that during that week the aliens will be requested to register, 
or at any future date be under a severe penalty if arrested or 
haled before a court for any violation of any law whatsoever, 

186 


and found guilty thereof. That will always be hanging over 
his head. The penalty you can make what you want, either 
a severe penalty financially, or possibly deportation. 

During that week, the alien will be given an indestructible, 
aluminum, perforated card, always to be carried on him. He 
does the registering. It is not a yearly process. He carries that 
card with him. A duplicate is always on file at the local office 
where he registered. On that card are instructions to the 
effect that if he has been in this country more than five years, 
he will have three years in which to get his education from some 
duly accredited public school official. If he has been less than 
five years in this country, he will have five years to get his 
education from a duly authorized public school official. In¬ 
coming immigrants will be given similar cards upon their arrival. 
From that week of registration, that system will always be car¬ 
ried on with regard to the individual immigrant. 

First of all, this gives a certain initiative to the alien. In the 
second place, it removes illiteracy. In the third place, it solves 
our problem of Americanization. In the fourth place, there is 
* no indefinite and involved enforcement system. 

Illicit immigration is cut off, because if a man comes before 
a judge and has not his card, you want to know why he didn’t 
register, why he didn’t get his card, how he got into the country, 
and so forth. 

There should be, of course, details to this law that I can’t 
mention here. That law should only apply to towns of 4,000 
or less, because the danger of any compulsory registration law 
must be looked at from the point of view of education. What 
would happen in New York City with a sudden registration law 
compelling citizenship ? How many aliens do you figure would 
come into your schools in the course of one year, or two years, 
that couldn’t possibly be handled, nor handled for years, by 
any adequate force of teachers ? Thousands and thousands 
couldn’t be educated. You have got to consider the educational 
system at the same time. 

I am not here to advocate that as a cast iron system. You 
can put your penalties as you wish, but I suggest it as a means 
of going about this problem in a way that will solve it, without 
injuring the ideal of liberty that we have in this country, with¬ 
out great expense, with a registration that will be once and for 

187 


all. The big thing in its favor is that I have never been able to 
find anyone who could offer an adequate criticism of it. 

Mr. Charles Pergler , representing the National Alliance of American 
Czecho-Slovaks. 

Mr. Charles Pergler: The net result of the discussion 
referring to registration seems to be, at least so it impresses me, 
that it is largely a question of devising the proper method. 
When I came to this conference, after consulting leading men 
of the organization I represent, I came utterly opposed to any 
scheme of registration, but I am beginning to wonder whether 
some of us will not have to change our minds, and whether it 
isn’t a question of method. These things, it seems to me, largely 
are a question of wisdom and not necessarily of right or power. 
No one will question the right and the power of the country to 
prohibit or regulate immigration and consequently also to im¬ 
pose upon the immigrants such conditions as it may see fit. 
The question is whether you might not pay too high a price for 
certain temporary advantages. 

The one valid argument that I see for registration is the ques¬ 
tion of preventing the smuggling of immigrants into this country 
contrary to law. We ought to visualize these things as they may 
develop in administrative practice. Will registration prevent 
that ? I question it. In certain isolated cases it may occur, 
but not sufficiently, I think, to outweigh certain disadvantages. 
How are you going to follow, for instance, the immigrant from 
place to place, because you can’t tie him down to one place; 
you can’t force him to stay in New York or Chicago or San 
Francisco, unless you restrict freedom of migration within the 
country. 

Any number of administrative difficulties present themselves. 
This is a proposition where again these questions must largely 
be regulated at the source. In other words, don’t admit the 
undesirable immigrant; but once you have admitted a man or a 
woman, try to avoid discrimination. 

In the minds of the immigrants the objection to registration 
that arises at once is their fear of what they have learned to be 
purely police regulation and espionage. I agree with Mr. 
Henning in what he said this morning, that there is no such 
thought in the minds of the representatives of the American 
Government. But you are dealing also with the fact that that 

188 


fear is aroused. You are dealing also with another fact that 
it is a serious question whether registration might not be the 
opening wedge to all sorts of interference with the personal 
liberty of the individual in the best sense of the term. These 
are objections that will have to be met. I don’t fear the United 
States immigration service. I don’t fear any corruption. But 
sometimes there is such a thing as incorruptible officiousness, 
if you will permit the term, and this is the thing that the immi¬ 
grant is occasionally afraid of. 

Why not try to meet the situation somewhat differently than 
is suggested here ? The analogy with voting, that everybody 
must register before he votes, will not hold water, for the very 
simple reason that that is voluntary. It is the exercise of a right, 
while you are proposing a compulsory thing. The argument will 
not hold that you are intending it merely for the benefit of the 
immigrant, because that sounds a trifle paternalistic. The im¬ 
migrant wants to do things for himself occasionally. 

You can’t make people good by fiat from above or from some¬ 
body else. But there is, it seems to me, a way out. What do 
you want with the immigrant once he is admitted ? You want 
to make of him a good American, and the very first step is to 
make a citizen of him. Why shouldn’t it be possible to devise a 
scheme under which any man or woman intending to become a 
citizen registers, declares his intention while he registers, and 
after a period of five years, his registration under proper forms, 
defined by law, would be conclusive proof of his stay for five 
years in the country ? Nearly everybody would register, and 
the thing would remove all possible impression of purely police 
supervision. 

In this way you would relieve the courts; you would do away 
conceivably with the necessity of witnesses. The man would 
be registered for five years. He would be^ if necessary, under 
a certain degree of supervision as a citizen-to-be, and after five 
years he would simply take his oath as a citizen. His qualifica¬ 
tions would have been established during the five years. 

I am simply throwing out these hints. A man naturally can¬ 
not work the proposition out in a short address of this sort. 
But you can see any number of arguments for a proposition of 
this sort, which would meet the necessity for keeping track of 
the immigrants, which would also enable you to do whatever 
you want to for them, without creating in their minds a preju 

189 


dice. Whether the prejudice is valid or not is immaterial; it 
is there and should be avoided. 

In conclusion let me suggest another thing. The President, 
in his last message, makes an alternative proposition as to the 
regulation of immigration. The matter hasn’t been touched 
upon. He suggests that it might be based not only on the num¬ 
ber of immigrants who are already in the country, but he states 
as an alternative that the record of naturalization be the basis. 

Why shouldn’t you judge the people coming to this country 
by the showing they have made in desiring or not desiring to 
become part and parcel of the American organized society ? 
Where have you a better record than the naturalization record 
which imposes and requires a certain knowledge of American 
institutions and the general principles of American government ? 

Congressman E. Celler, of the Tenth District, New York . 

Mr. Celler: I am here today as a representative in Con¬ 
gress and am naturally interested in the subject matter of all 
your discussions, because I will in the final analysis have a right 
to vote on what may come up in the halls of Congress with 
reference thereto. 

I am interested, however, in seeing to it that this matter is 
considered without prejudice, without bigotry, without any 
feeling of antipathy, and in the dry light of reason. When we 
discuss immigration in no matter what quarter (unfortunately 
I wasn’t here at your previous conferences, I don’t know how 
it was discussed here) we always find that feelings and passions 
are aroused, and that is indeed unfortunate. When it comes to 
the selection of committees who will pass upon immigration, we 
find the same passions are aroused on the part of those who 
have the power to appoint the immigration committee in Con¬ 
gress, and that is indeed unfortunate. 

I have heard what your conferences have discussed with ref¬ 
erence to registration. I came here with an open mind, but I 
have not determined for myself what is best for the immigrant 
with reference to whether or not each shall register or shall not 
register. I do know this, that the subject may be fraught with 
a great deal of danger, if you determine upon a registration 
which shall not be logical and which shall not be fair. It is a 
very dangerous thing, to my mind, to register in any manner 
which will not take into consideration the interests of the im- 


190 


migrant as well as the interests of America. And if you have 
that manner and kind of registration which will give rise to a 
system of espionage, then anathema to registration. 

I will not want to see the day where you can have any police¬ 
man or any registration official, like a prohibition official, come 
to a poor alien and say: “You haven’t registered,” or “You 
refused to register and, therefore, you must go back to your 
country of birth.” That, indeed, would be cruel; it would be 
heartless and would be equivalent to some of the barbarism 
that we now have in our quota law. That kind of registration, 
indeed, I would set my foot against, with every ounce of energy 
within me. 

I wouldn’t have the registration that we had under the Alien 
Sedition Laws way back in 1789. That was a very bad sort of 
registration that existed in those days, and gave rise to a great 
deal of trouble. I would not have the registration that we have 
along the lines of the Chinese Exclusion Act, because to apply 
to the various foreign strains in our population what you apply 
to the Mongolian today would again be fraught with a great 
deal of danger. 

You must go slow, therefore, before you shall adopt any sort 
of system of registration of aliens. Catherine the Great, of 
Russia, was once asked whether she was going to put into force 
a certain statute that had been passed, and she realized with all 
her wisdom that it was a statute that would get under the 
skins, as it were, of the people of her country, and she said: 
“No, if I sign my name on that parchment, I sign my name on 
skin, and therefore, I do get under the skins of my people.” 
A registration program that would interrupt or interfere un¬ 
justly with the freedom of action of aliens, would be just the 
kind of registration which would be most destructive, most 
tyrannical and most dangerous. 

However, in any matter that has to do with our immigrant 
population, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that we have a 
history which is a good history, indeed, but it is a history of 
aliens, pure and simple. If we go back to our Revolutionary 
period, we find that the population of this country then was 
more heterogeneous than it is today, and our historians will 
always tell us that we had many more ethnic strains in our 
colonial population than we have today, though it may sound 
strange to say that. 


191 


We often hear of the superiority of the Nordics. I wonder 
whether there is really any scientific basis in that superiority. 

I question it, and I would like to be shown. 

I have before me “English Traits’’ by Emerson, which I was 
reading on the train the other night from Washington, and 
he has something very peculiar to say about the English race 
which is, and always was, a part of the Nordics. He says this: 

“The English composite character betrays a mixed origin. 
Everything English is a fusion of distant and antagonistic ele¬ 
ments. The language is mixed; the names of men are of 
different nations—three languages, three or four nations— 
the currents of thought are counter; contemplation and prac¬ 
tical skill; active intellect and dead conservatism; world-wide 
enterprise, and devoted use and wont. Neither do these 
people appear to be of one stem, but collectively a better race 
than any from which they are derived.” 

And he quotes De Foe: “De Foe said in his wrath: ‘The 
Englishman was the mud of all races.’ ” It is well to remember 
that, because we hear the very same thing today, that the great 
hordes of population that come from certain sections of Europe 
are the scum of Europe. De Foe calls certain strains in England 
the mud of Europe and it is well to keep in mind that our his¬ 
tory is a history of heterogeneous strains. 

The question is whether or not you are going to react in a 
scientific manner to the difficulties that have arisen lately, free 
from prejudice, and as I said before, by the dry light of reason. 
It is charged, for example, that socialism and radicalism find 
their level among our foreign populations, that it is the foreign¬ 
ers that have given rise to the rapid spread of socialism in some of 
our states. I am reminded of what Gladstone said, and of what 
Bismarck said of socialism. Bismarck said: “Why, it is the 
English that give us our socialism and cause the spread of it in 
Germany.” And at the same time that Bismarck was saying 
that, Gladstone said: “It is the foreigners, the Germans who 
are in our midst who are giving us our socialism.” Who was 
right, Gladstone or Bismarck ? And so it is today. 

In testimony which was given in the Senate Investigating 
Committee not so long ago, it was proven beyond peradventure 
of a doubt that the greatest sections where socialism exist are 
not the foreign-born sections. We have the highest type and 
form of socialism, for example, down in New Zealand, where 
they have absolute restriction. For example, if one tries to 

192 


come into New Zealand, an immigration inspector can compel 
him to read in any one of nineteen or twenty different languages, 
and if an Englishman comes in, he will set up before him a paper 
which has on it German and say: “If you can’t read the Ger¬ 
man, you are excluded,” and if a German comes in and they 
want to keep him out, they will give him an English sheet and 
if he can’t read that, the German is excluded. 

So it is not necessarily true, and you can’t prove it to be 
scientifically true, that radicalism or socialism is the result of 
the great numbers of foreigners among us. 

I believe it was told here yesterday that we have an ever- 
increasing number of foreigners in our state insane asylums, 
and that is true. But it is only a half truth, because we also 
have an ever-increasing number of native -born in the insane 
asylums of our various states. It has been proven that if you 
take the numbers of foreign-born who are in our state asylums 
over a decade, you will find that the number has not increased 
in proportion to the increase of population. On the other hand, 
if you take the number of natives in our state insane asylums, 
and you compare them over a decade with the entire number of 
native-born population, you will find that in most cases where 
the native-born population has decreased, the native-born in 
the insane asylums has increased. Therefore it is wrong to say 
that, for example, in New York State, 25% of the inmates of 
the state insane asylums are foreign-born, and that therefore the 
foreigners should be restricted in some manner or form. It is a 
fallacy to argue that way, because you must take the entire 
number of foreign-born in our midst and make the comparison 
between those in the insane asylums who are of foreign origin 
and those who are outside the insane asylum of foreign origin 
and compare them in the same manner with the native-born in 
or out of the insane asylums. Then, and then only, will you 
have a scientific basis to make any sort of statement that will 
carry any value whatsoever. 

I am very thankful to have had this little opportunity to talk 
to you, and I want to impress upon the minds of all of you, as 
I will if I get a chance impress it upon those in the House, that 
we must consider this matter in a fair manner towards the alien, 
to consider his rights, as well as to Conserve^the energies and 
conserve all that has been good and found good in the past, of 
these, the fair United States. 


193 


Mr. John M. Hartley , of the Retail Bakers ’ Association 
of America. 

Mr. Hartley: I always knew the immigrant was a good 
guy, but I never knew he was quite such a tender plant as I find 
him to be during this session, and I do think that he could 
stand a little gentle supervision officially from the time he lands 
until the time he goes up for his first papers. 

I rather think the young gentleman who represents the 
Czecho-Slovaks got the right point, that there is nothing in 
espionage. When we go up for our papers, we have to tell where 
we have been and prove it; we have to go and get witnesses. 
Sometimes, although a young fellow is about ready, he will have 
to stay out of his work for quite a while so that he may prove 
and make up h ; s papers by eye-witnesses. 

I believe it would be of more help than hindrance and I don’t 
think it would hurt his feelings so severely that it would make 
him feel too badly about these United States. An immigrant 
early learns the arts of defensive emulation, anyhow. I was not 
thinking of it as espionage. I was merely thinking that it would 
sincerely help the immigrant himself. 

I am going to make a further suggestion. Place the authority 
for his report, if he makes a report, in the hands of the federal 
judge, the clerk of the federal court, or the immigration offi¬ 
cers. I want to tell you that an immigrant has considerable 
regard and respect for Uncle Sam and considerable use for his 
local politicians, and there is a good deal of difference between 
regard and use. The finest thing we can do is to get the immi¬ 
grant to look beyond his national who has constituted himself a 
political authority, and let him see that there is something be¬ 
yond that to whom he must look and who has the say-so in 
regard to the laws of this country; because sometimes the boss 
of the river ward is the only Czar that the new man understands 
or looks up to. Beyond that he doesn’t go. Whenever he wants 
anything done he goes to him and works through him. He keeps 
his nationals in the hollow of his hand, and to these nationals 
the political boss of his nationality in that district is the biggest 
thing in the United States to him. I rather think if Uncle Sam 
stepped in and took a little gentle supervision of this alien, that 
he would do himself and the alien some good. 


194 


Mr. Howard Bradstreet, the Director of Adult Education, of 
Hartford , Conn. 

Mr. Howard Bradstreet: I desire to register the answer 

no” to Question III and its sub-heads, for the same reason that 
the answer “yes” i s given to Question II. 

There is merit in the suggestions. They need careful study 
as a basis for future action. But the present quota law is an 
experiment. It has not yet received full trial divested of ad¬ 
ministrative defects. Until this has been done, no drastic al¬ 
terations should be made. 

Connecticut was originally an agricultural state. There are 
now huge tracts of undeveloped land that were formerly under 
cultivation. The region of Glastonbury has been restored to 
fruit and vineyards through the fine work of Italians. There is 
a call now for agricultural laborers. To say the state is satur¬ 
ated with population is untrue. Attention should be given to 
intelligent distribution quite as much as to discrimination in 
admission. This is a matter for joint state and federal action. 

An immigration law deals with human beings, and any law 
passed by Congress must recognize the laws of human nature. 
It is impossible to have a satisfied mind in the new resident if he 
is separated from his family or is made to feel that he belongs 
to an inferior race. Distinction has been made here between 
those who “speak from the head” and those who “speak from the 
heart.” Both must be recognized. The average man acts upon 
emotion, and the head must dictate such policies as produce 
emotions of loyalty and contentment rather than of irritation. 

To compel education of adults, or registration of aliens long 
in the country, under penalty for failure to do so, is to defeat 
the purposes for which they were suggested. A fundamental 
law of human nature in any man who is worth while demands 
independence of action. He is willing to be led but not forced. 
This is one of the most cherished principles of our founders, 
and should be scrupulously maintained by their descendants. 
The certification of the newly arrived alien as proposed in the 
new Johnson Bill (H. R. 101) is another matter and deserves 
hearty support. 

To change the basis of allotment to 1890 involves a racial 
discrimination in which each must be analyzed, challenging the 
Irish, the Jew, the Greek and all others to show their worth— 
a process admirably designed to produce animosities. If the 

195 


number of immigrants is too large, 1% or one-half of 1% on 
the census of 1920 would be the natural basis for reduction. 
Science in the hands of scientists is one thing, but used as tool 
for prejudice by the unscientific is quite another. 

Further time and further study of the intricacies of the sub¬ 
ject are necessary before substantial changes are made. 

Mr. W. S. Hays, of the National Slate Association, Philadelphia, Pa. 

The slate industry branch of American quarrying interests 
most certainly hopes that this Congress will make such ad¬ 
ministrative changes in the immigration law and in the con¬ 
tract labor laws as will permit the slate quarry managers to send 
word by advertising, an immigration board or through consuls, 
to the unemployed quarry workers of England and Wales or 
other suitable workers to come and fill the ranks in American 
quarries depleted bv the war exodus. Present immigrants or 
unemployed workers in America do not go to these quarry 
communities. The growing boys of present operatives seek 
the more congested cities. Nevertheless, living costs and con¬ 
ditions are ideal in these quarry towns. Workers’ families 
have detached homes with gardens. The wages equal any paid 
in most other lines of work the men might do in the city. The 
war exodus of 1918 took nearly 50% of the number of quarry 
workers of 1917 into other industries or the service. Many of 
that number have not yet returned, so that the industry is trying 
to meet a larger public demand for its product with 15% fewer 
men than it had in 1917 and only 50% of what it had in 1912. 
Although by November 1 the 1923 English immigration quota 
had been exhausted, only four workers had found their way 
during the first five months of this quota to the quarries through 
the present maze of other opportunities at the ports of distribu¬ 
tion. If it is fair to seek markets for American goods abroad it 
should be fair to seek experienced quarry workers, who would 
make eventually as ideal citizens as the first ones have proven 
who came over years ago. 

Since we limit immigration, let us select the types and experi¬ 
ence or capacity to work most needed to keep our own citizens 
and workers employed and to maintain a healthy development 
of our industries. Our campaigns for fireproof and permanent 
construction require that the basic materials such as slate roofs 
shall be made available for all who are building and need them. 

196 


Our school buildings need slate blackboards. Our tremendous 
electrical development needs electrical slate. It is unfair dis¬ 
crimination against one industry to deprive it of means of recruit¬ 
ing its manpower and permit competitive industries located in 
or near large cities to flourish. 

Although the slate industry is endeavoring in a cooperative 
way to increase the production and sale of slate, it is seriously 
handicapped in certain sections by inability to obtain sufficient 
quarry workers to meet demand and even enough common 
labor to keep present workers fully and efficiently employed, or 
properly to develop the quarries. 

If men were available, probably twice as much slate could be 
produced and sold now for certain uses, but instead we and the 
slate quarries hard pressed to deliver all the slate required on 
time, and a large volume of potential slate business going to 
substitutes where customers or construction projects cannot 
wait. When the home goes up the roof must go on. 

How are men to be secured ? Some relief must be offered 
industries which are located out of our great cities. According 
to President Howard of the Farm Bureau Federation the trend 
of immigration is stimulating the growth of food in other 
countries where immigration is permitted. American agricul¬ 
ture and industries like slate need consideration and permission 
to seek admissible alien workers upon exact proof they are 
needed, just as is given our opera and theatrical producers. 
We need food, roofing protection of our homes from the elements, 
sanitary and structural slate, slate for blackboards and electrical 
switchboards, just as much as we need entertainment, only we 
need it 365 days a year. If we take care of the development of 
minds by special rules, why not take care of our bodies and 
shelter by special rules for workers for out-of-the-way industries 
having difficulty to recruit American-born workers and not re¬ 
ceiving from present immigration any marked relief supply ? 

DECREASE IN WORKERS IN AMERICAN SLATE QUARRIES LAST 
DECADE, DUE TO TREND AWAY FROM QUARRY SMALL TOWNS, 
WAR EXODUS AND NO IMMIGRATION 

1912.8,020 1919.3,373 

1915.7,044 1920.3,496 

1917 .4,627 1921..3,564 

1918 .2,690 1922.3,941 

Figures for 1923 not yet available. 

197 










Previous to 1912 immigration brought new recruits to the 
quarries from the English, French and Welsh quarries. This 
past summer, even with much unemployment in England, to 
our knowledge only four men filtered through to the American 
quarries. Under the present contract labor and immigration 
laws we cannot given accurate data on American slate quarry 
employment opportunities where it is most needed among the 
unemployed quarry workers abroad. 

While we agree with what others have said that it might be 
unfair to require immigrants when they first land for at least a 
given time to go on the farms or into other industries located in 
smaller communities like the slate quarries, yet something must 
be done to satisfy the needs of the country for farm products, 
slate and other things produced in the great outdoors, or smaller 
communities. 

We heard recently that seven English slate quarry workers 
arrived at New York and were told there was no work in American 
quarries, and they went to Duluth in the iron mines. As a 
matter of fact seventy times that number could be used in the 
various slate quarries. 

To overcome this point we tried to file at all ports of immigra¬ 
tion particulars as to openings. In most cases we were told 
there was no way to make it known to immigrants, or that they 
usually have been sent for by relatives when they come in. And 
yet under the law we cannot tell the facts to these immigrants 
before they sail. 

Mr. Hugh Frayne’s ideas are good and would enable us to 
get the number of workers we need in the slate quarries and in 
all other industries. A very scientific plan is one way the Secre¬ 
tary of Labor Davis might solve the problem of securing 
exactly the type and kind of workers needed in certain localities. 

Looking at the matter in a practical way, facing a more 
and more selective and limited immigration, we must awaken 
the desire in every American-born lad to have the asset of a 
trade and some hard work. It didn’t hurt Mr. Brady or Mr. 
Davis and many others. This “withheld energy” or man¬ 
power Mr. Cheney spoke of will become available and our 
needs for immigration grow less and less. 

A few of the early Irish and English settlers are still in the 
quarries. But as Mr. Brady and Mr. Davis will agree, their 

198 


sons want to be bankers, cabinet officers, etc., and not work¬ 
ers at a trade. Who will work at these trades ? Few coming 
now t from where Mr. Davis came want to take up the pick and 
shovel or manual labor tasks. 

Consequently in the last generation the few workers who 
came into the quarries from abroad came from other sections 
of Europe in about the same stage of development, living 
standards, etc., as the first Irish who came over generations ago. 
You seldom see any now of Mr. Brady’s race peacefully digging 
ditches. 

Now what does this mean ? It means that in selecting our 
necessary immigration from abroad, and in the standards of 
admission, we must consider the niche they are to fill in this 
country and the physical as well as mental requirements of such 
work. 

Assistant Secretary Henning has pointed out that some educa¬ 
tion is necessary for these so-called illiterates, if healthy and 
with an appetite for pick and shovel and real work, after they 
come in, but we need to get some of them in now, not only in 
slate quarries but other places. So let’s get them in and take 
care of their education here. If they had all American advan¬ 
tages they wouldn’t want to come at all. 

The other administrative changes in the immigration law 
suggested, if considered the best way out by Secretary of Labor 
Davis and his associates, should be put in. 

If actual results show the Canadian system has stood the 
test let us try it. By all means change the contract labor law 
of February 5, 1917 to permit proper seeking of our labor needs 
elsewhere so long as American-born unemployed cannot be found 
willing to work in quarries and other places needing men. 
Change the illiteracy law of same date so as not to keep out 
husky laborers, healthy and otherwise admissible; but definite 
educational instruction should be given to enable them to speak, 
read and write English and understand American institutions 
within a reasonable time after they arrive. 

Regarding registration, Secretary of Labor Davis has evolved 
a good plan. To avoid discrimination we should have regis¬ 
tration of all man-power so that we may know how many are 
in respective trades in every locality and how many we have 
to replace per annum or recruit and train from immigrants and 
the youth of the land. 


199 


Any blood and intelligence tests that will assure sound and 
fertile-brained immigrants should be applied. 

A study of the leaping demands for labor in new industries 
shows why our common labor is becoming uncommon. Take 
1923 in the automotive industy and allied lines alone—2,750,000 
employed. Previous to the 1910 census there was a very small 
demand and practically none in 1890. We must keep our im¬ 
migration policy and basis of need in step with our present day 
needs, not on basis of 1890 or any old census. 

We must show our young men that manual labor is not only 
dignified but an economical asset. In the recent unemployment 
period “the white collar” boys who had no trades were out of 
work much longer. Men with a trade were at a premium and 
hard to get. A boy with a trade up his sleeve can always earn 
a living, even in hard times. 

Chairman Lindsay: The fourth topic on the agenda is the 
question: “Shall a competent commission with broad powers 

oj investigation be appointed by the President under Congres¬ 
sional resolution to inquire into the major factors in the immi¬ 
gration problem and report thereon?' 

I want, first of all, to remind you that there has entered into 
this discussion already the proposal of various kinds of com¬ 
missions. Please notice that this proposal that we are now going 
to discuss is for a fact-finding commission of inquiry. It is not 
the commission that is proposed by many organizations, that 
has been suggested here in the discussion several times already, 
to administer an immigration law. It is not a commission like 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, to determine immigra¬ 
tion policies, or to administer policies determined in a general 
way by Congress, and to work out the details. 

There are very admirable proposals for those features of our 
immigration law and immigration policy. That is not the ques¬ 
tion before us. The question is whether we need now to have a 
fundamental, scientific inquiry made by authority of Congress, 
in order to determine what is the consensus with respect to the 
essentials of a general immigration law. 

In favor of such a proposition it may be said, first of all, 
that the discussions that have been going on since the beginning 
of the enactment of the present quota law, just such discussions 
as we have had here in this Conference yesterday and today, 

200 


show plainly that there is no unity of opinion with respect to 
many essential features or factors in an immigration law, and 
that the only way that Congress can act, and act wisely, is to 
have prepared for it a sufficiently broad, general discussion by 
the people that will bring out those things that we have in 
common, wherein any definite proposal can have the support 
of a united public opinion. That is one argument in favor of a 
national commission. 

There have, also, I think, been developed in this Conference, 
and at many other conferences also, important biological, social 
and political questions, questions like those submitted by one 
of the gentlemen who spoke here at the session this morning, 
that certainly cannot be settled off-hand by a Committee of 
Congress, as they sit and hold hearings upon specific bills and 
proposals that involve the bringing together of scientific knowl¬ 
edge from a great many different specialized sources, and 
determining what are the facts, what is the extent of our knowl¬ 
edge about racial intermixture, about the relative social and 
economic superiority or inferiority of different peoples. All of 
those matters will have to be taken into account in connection 
with any far-reaching and comprehensive immigration legislation. 

There are a good many other reasons that might be brought 
out, and doubtless will be brought out in the discussion here this 
afternoon, as to why we should have such a commission. There 
are some very good reasons on the other side. I want to refer 
just in a word to one or two of them to start the discussion 
going. 

Do you know, they have a game down in Washington, that 
every member of Congress becomes very adept at, and most of 
the officers or officials of the Executive Department of the 
Government become even more adept at ? It is a game they 
call in the army “passing the buck,” and our experience with 
commissions in the past, with fact-finding commissions, inquiry 
commissions, has been such that I think the average Congress¬ 
man is apt to jump at the proposal of a commission as a means 
of evading responsibility for action, or as a means of post¬ 
poning action, delaying. It gives a chance for people to talk 
about something and usually ends in talk. That has been the 
history of a great many important commissions, but it hasn’t 
been the history of all of them. There have been commissions 
that have cleared the atmosphere. 

201 


You will all recall the great National Monetary Commission. 
I doubt whether the law which was passed some six or seven 
years, after the National Monetary Commission made its report 
creating the Federal Reserve System, could have been passed, 
whether the necessary unity of action could have been had in 
our political life if it hadn’t been for the work of the National 
Monetary Commission. So that it isn’t always the case that 
commissions serve no other purpose except delay. 

But there is another objection that may be made to the 
proposal for a fact-finding commission of inquiry, namely that 
we have had such a commission. There was a very important 
commission established in 1907, the National Immigration 
Commission, and it made a very thorough, careful study, lasting 
over three or four years. It engaged experts in all the various lines, 
on all of these questions that I have referred to, and many others 
that I haven’t taken time to refer to, and it published a very vol¬ 
uminous report which is a great source of information. Unfor¬ 
tunately it is just now almost exclusively a source of information 
of historical value only, because the whole situation has changed. 

Many of the fundamental facts, of course, have not changed, 
many of these biological questions are probably the same, for 
the extent of our knowledge has not been greatly enlarged since 
that time; but the whole economic and social problems underly¬ 
ing immigration policy have changed since the war, and public 
interest, public education in the matter of immigration, are 
altogether different than they were at that time. 

So that the existence of that report and the fact that this ques¬ 
tion was referred to a commission a little over ten years ago, I 
think, perhaps, is not a sufficient argument, or, at least, does 
not preclude the present discussion of the question of the 
advisability of having another commission of that sort. 

Mr. E. V. Titus of The New York State Farm Bureau Federation , who 
asked permission to speak on Question IV hut was unable to he present } 
later submitted the following statement: 

The Farm Bureau Federation is in favor of having an examin¬ 
ation made at the port of embarkation. We favor a Federal 
Immigration Commission of a flexible character that it may 
function in the interests of an adequate labor supply for the 
various industries, as the situation from time to time demands 
We do not want outcasts and offscourings of foreign countries 
dumped in America. 


202 


Mr. W. S. Hays , of the National Slate Association, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. W. S. Hays: In talking for a moment on Question IV, I 
think I agree most heartily with the Chairman about commis¬ 
sions. I think that sometimes when we talk about commissions 
we ignore completely the wonderful organizations and bodies 
and staffs of people that are already in existence. Now, I don’t 
know how many of you appreciated the wisdom of what Hugh 
Frayne said this morning, but it seems to me that that is the 
type of body that we need, one of action and not one of spending 
funds and spilling a lot of ink and using up paper. What we 
need is to get right down to hard pan, to find out what are the 
administrative features and limitations which have been dis¬ 
cussed in the last three questions and solve those problems in a 
way that the Canadian system has. 

In all of the discussion on Question III, we failed to hear any¬ 
thing about whether or not the Canadian system has worked. 
Theoretically, it sounds fine. Now, has it actually worked in 
Canada ? Have they been able to solve their problems ? Have 
they been able to bring in enough people to meet the needs 
they have found ? That is what we want to know—what is the 
real meat of the situation ? 

Now as to question “b”—the needs of normal industry. 
I wonder how many of us appreciate how industry has changed 
in the last decade ? If you would but study the census figures 
it would be impressed on you. Realize that' the automotive 
industry practically grew between 1910 and 1920. 

Think of the new industries that have crept into existence, the 
aeroplane and the radio. Then think of the enlarged demands of 
other growing industries. Now then, what about the labor ? 
Where have they found their supply of labor ? By taking it 
away from our common labor supply. Mr. Alexander showed 
us yesterday that we are not making men fast enough here to 
fill these demands. 

Some people say: “Sure, we want restriction of immigration.” 
Unions want a certain limit to the number of people in the 
different trades, and logically so, but their limit is based on 
fact and reason. They say they want to have enough men in 
the different trades to be employed the year round. Secretary 
Hoover has a committee working on the question of seasonal 
occupation in the building trades. These trades faced, accord¬ 
ing to the census figures, a tremendous shortage in practically 

203 


all lines except two or three; there was a loss absolutely 
running counter to the trend of the normal population growth. 
Therefore, we knew that the only thing to do was what Mr. 
Cheney said, secure a greater use of man power. Instead of the 
bricklayer working two hundred days a year, let’s find a way 
to have him work and make it possible for him to work, if he 
wants to, three hundred days a year, deducting his Sundays and 
holidays. Of course, with your Saturday half holiday, your 
effective working days are only about two hundred and eighty. 

There isn’t one city in the United States that can tell you 
today how many carpenters they have, and where they are work¬ 
ing and what they are doing. We have no intelligence, no facts 
on which to go and by which to study this man power situation, 
and to know where we are. 

I think Mr. Alexander will bear me out on that. We have the 
National Industrial Conference Board, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics at Washington, we have the Secretary of Labor, 
Davis, and the Secretary of Commerce, Hoover, and the Secre¬ 
tary of Agriculture, Wallace. Why do we need any more com¬ 
missions ? Put these men around the table with a few of the 
kind of advisers you have had here today, and we would solve 
this problem in no time. It is a matter of administration and 
it is not a matter of a lot of red tape. 

I think that possibly the problem is best stated in a little 
letter from one of our slate quarries. It says: 

“The only thought I have is that according to information 
received, there are a great many idle slate workers and rock 
men in England and Wales. There is in this region a con- . 
siderable shortage of both slate makers and rock men. The 
working conditions are good and the wages high. The above 
should be a simple proposition to work out if it doesn’t get 
tangled up in too much red tape.” 

Don’t bound it around with woolen strings and red tape; but 
put these men around the board. I would be willing to sit 
around the board with these men, with Hugh Frayne represent¬ 
ing labor, and Mr. Brady whom we had here this morning, Secre¬ 
tary of Labor, Davis, and Mr. Henning and a few others, and 
we would soon solve this problem if Congress would stand behind 
us with the right kind of law. 


204 


Dr. Samuel Joseph, representing the American Jewish Congress. 

Dr. Samuel Joseph: I don’t suppose that to be controver¬ 
sial is in good form, but we have been controversial so much 
these last few days that I may remark that the last speaker’s 
statement reminded me of General Allen’s remarks concerning 
how easy it was to solve, in the minds of one or two persons, 
the entire European situation, just by putting up one or two 
simple proposals and one or two people getting around a table 
and settling the whole question. That is the simplicity, of 
course, in the mind of an individual. And yet, we have seen 
that in these two days of conferences there have been as many 
conflicting opinions as there have been persons that have spoken. 

Now why ? Simply because the facts on these various prob¬ 
lems that have been or are being taken up are not so well known. 
In many cases we haven’t the facts, and in many other cases we 
are not all acquainted with the facts. If this immigration ques¬ 
tion is so simple, why has this country taken a half a year to 
study it, to have conferences, to have boards, commissions, 
investigations, if this whole matter could be solved in just a 
little space of time with a few sensible persons coming together 
and talking it over sensibly and solving all those problems in 
such a natural, simple manner that the whole country would be 
satisfied immediately, and turn to some other problems ? 

I speak now as one who has spent a number of years studying 
some of these problems of immigration, and going over very 
carefully a good many of these reports. I have read most of the 
reports of the Immigration Commission and of the Industrial 
Commission of 1902 and I have spent many a weary hour over 
all of the immigration reports of the United States Bureau of 
Immigration, and I must say that between facts and their in¬ 
terpretation lies sometimes a very deep chasm. It is necessary 
to go over these facts very, very carefully, to come to conclusions 
that will satisfy the common sense of the people of the country. 

For instance, you had for three years an Immigration Com¬ 
mission, meeting from 1907, reporting in 1910, in 41 voluminous 
volumes, and adopting a report hastily, with the editorial ad¬ 
viser, Professor Parker Willis, a colleague, I believe, of Dr. 
Lindsay, stating as a conclusion of it all, that there was a vast 
amount of material collected by the Immigration Commission 
which remains unanalyzed and undigested, 

205 


These students seem to feel that it is very important to get 
the facts and also very important to understand what they 
mean. For that reason, I take it that a question like this of 
considering another study of immigration may be in order. 

As Dr. Lindsay has said, conditions have changed very radi¬ 
cally. In addition to that, some new questions and new studies 
have come up. We have, for instance, this entire biological 
phase of immigration, this whole question of the social values 
of the different immigrant groups as compared to what we call 
the native American stock. All those questions are vital and 
will affect our legislation. Are they not to be gone over again ? 
Are we not to go over them so thoroughly that we know really 
what they mean and whether they have any importance for us 
as far as action is concerned ? Here we are, a rather large body 
of people coming, I find, from different parts of the country, all 
of us interested from one angle or another in immigration, all 
of us representing, however, in ourselves, only a part of the 
experience and the knowledge required in understanding com¬ 
pletely these questions that have been so ably presented to us 
by the National Industrial Conference Board. It seems to me 
that there is no question that we have much further study to 
make in order to understand and in order to be able to think 
clearly upon such important questions as the registration of 
aliens, upon such important questions as to whether immigra¬ 
tion should be restricted further and in what way, upon such 
questions as to whether labor immigration should be regulated 
in accordance with the industrial needs, and in accordance with 
the social needs of the country. 

Going over all of these thoughts and experiences, however, it 
seems to me that another commission, as has been suggested by 
Dr. Lindsay in his opening remarks, like the Immigration Com¬ 
mission, repeating its work and perhaps doing it as incompletely 
and as badly, will be a waste of time, a postponement of action, 
and particularly a defeat of the very purpose. 

My thought has been this, that we need knowledge, that we 
need the proper kind of information, but we need it permanently, 
we need it gathered scientifically and systematically. There 
should be a Board constituted very much like this National 
Industrial Conference Board, which I judge from its literature 
and from the results of this Conference, has been systematically 
steadily studying various phases of industry. There should be 

206 


a body like this, constituted so as to study permanently, care¬ 
fully and systematically the various facts and phases of immi¬ 
gration, not haphazardly and in connection with immediate 
legislation, but so as to give us a body of information that has 
been gone over very thoroughly and very carefully, and that 
will really enable us in the course of time to know what is true 
and what is false about immigration. 

Miss M. E. Bingeman , Assistant Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce» 
Rochester , New York. 

Miss M. E. Bingeman: I am not here to express an opinion’ 
but to ask a question. Is it possible in any other way to 
get facts that we need unless there is a commission, as this 
question says, to ascertain the “needs of normally functioning 
industry, commerce and transportation for adequate labor 
supply and, in so far as the native supply is insufficient, for 
immigrants generally, and for special groups of immigrants ?” 

It is just possible that we need facts which there is no other 
way to get, and that we must have a cumbersome commission 
and the expense of it in order to get those facts together. It is 
essential for industry to have certain information, and if this 
information is not forthcoming in any other way, it might be 
necessary to have a commission. 

I want to illustrate the point that I have in mind. In western 
New York, the agricultural industry is very important. A few 
months ago I attended a meeting of representatives of the seven 
counties surrounding Rochester. There was a community coun¬ 
cil. It was about one thing—the need for agricultural 1 bor. 
They said: “We can’t work the farms.” One man said: “On 
my fruit farm I need twenty-five men.” Another one said: 
“In my district, there are at least fifty farmers that need help 
and can’t get it.” Another one said: “Yes, and the immigra¬ 
tion that is coming in doesn’t supply it because the people 
aren’tYarmers, and they won’t go out on the farm. You could 
get in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and you wouldn’t 
have what you need.” 

Another man there, a farm real estate man said: “Down in 
Texas, Kansas,” or some place where he had worked, “a group 
of immigrants from Southern Russia have been living for about 
twenty-five years, more or less—the most wonderful agricultural 
workers anywhere to be found in the world. There are others 

207 


like them in Russia. They want to come over here.” If any 
way could be found to put your hand on that group of agricul¬ 
tural laborers in Russia and bring them over to western New 
York, it would be good all around. 

Is there now any way whereby the need and the supply can 
be brought together, outside of having a commission to do it ? 

Chairman Lindsay: I don’t know, but perhaps some of the 
other speakers during the course of the afternoon may answer 
Miss Bingeman’s questions. Of course, we have a precedent for 
perhaps what she has in mind, another way than that of having 
a special fact-finding commission created, of systematically 
and continuously getting at the facts that are necessary for the 
development and administration of immigration legislation. 
Congress could, of course, instruct and command one of the 
existing departments of government, the Department of Com¬ 
merce, if you please, or the Bureau of Immigration, or the De¬ 
partment of Labor, to collect any information it desires to have 
—do it systematically and regularly and continuously—and 
that could be done in that way, as long as Congress provided 
the means for doing it. Whether that is the best way to get 
it or whether we had better have a special commission for it, 
in order to dramatize the whole thing and really to round up 
public opinion in a way that would get quicker action in the 
long run from Congress in die enactment of such knowledge as 
we have, is another question. That is the matter that we are 
now discussing. 

Mr. William Edlin , Editor of “The Day” and representing the United 
Foreign Language Newspaper Publishers and Editors. 

Mr. William Edlin: If this body were so constituted that 
it could take a vote upon any of the propositions that are placed 
for discussion, I would strongly urge the adoption of this propo¬ 
sition as formulated under Question IV. I would do so because 
I believe that if a competent commission were appointed by the 
President of the United States to make a thorough study and 
investigation of the major factors bearing on the immigration 
problem, then it might go a long way to clear the atmosphere 
and remove from the minds of so many millions of our citizens 
here the prejudice that has lately been implanted in the minds 
against the foreign elements in this country, 

208 


As an editor of a foreign language newspaper, The Day , the 
National Jewish Daily, so-called, and as a delegate here from 
the United Foreign Language Newspaper Publishers and Editors 
recently formed, I must tell you that we view with alarm, with 
considerable alarm, the prejudice regarding the immigrant that 
is prevailing at this moment, particularly since the World War. 
One would think, surveying the field, that this country were a 
country thousands of years old, inhabited by some ancient 
stock, while the truth is that this is a country of foreigners only 
a few hundred years old, and no man here can say that he is 
better than his neighbor just because he happened to come 
here fifty years ahead of the other one. 

This is a country of freedom, democracy and equality, and 
the foreigner today feels as if, somehow or other, the idea is 
being spread about that he is inferior to the one who happened 
to arrive here a generation or two ago. The foreign elements 
are resenting such a sentiment and they know very well that if 
a competent commission were appointed to study the whole 
immigration problem in all its phases, and would at the same 
time study the contributions made by the various foreign groups 
to the growth and civilization of this country, such a commission 
would soon enough bring out the salient fact that every foreign 
group here, every racial group here, has done more than its 
share to make this country the glorious land that it is. 

One can take the City of New York alone and draw a lesson 
therefrom. It is the largest foreign populated city in the world. 
The Italians, and the Germans, and the Russians, and the Poles, 
and the Czecho-Slovaks, and the Greeks, and the Jews, and 
numerous other nationalities inhabit this great city. See what 
they have made of New York—the most wonderful city in the 
world, rich materially, great culturally. It is the pride of the 
United States of America. And I would like some of you to 
compare in your own minds the achievements of the people 
living right here in New York, the people who are mixed for¬ 
eigners, with some of the very pure native towns and see whether 
we need be ashamed of the things we have done here in New 
York City. 

If I had time to argue this matter, I could prove to you that 
there is nothing that the foreigners in this country do that they 
should deserve the treatment that some of the natives think 
they ought to get. The spirit of superiority that is shown to 

209 


these is a spirit that should never prevail in this country. We 
are all alike and whether one is born on the other side and comes 
here to choose this country to live in because he loves its in¬ 
stitutions and ideals, or whether one is born here, which is a 
mere accident, should make no difference. 

This country, its greatness, is based upon the fundamental 
principle that we are all born equal and we are all entitled 
equally to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, 
I do hope that whatever your views on immigration are, you 
will please bear in mind that this question involves the interests 
and the ideals and the feelings of millions of foreign-born citizens 
in this country, and that it doesn’t do this country any good if 
you can’t keep these people united by a common ideal. You 
instill hatred in them. We all ought to work hand in hand to 
make this country still more wonderful instead of trying to bring 
discord amongst ourselves and, by certain laws or certain ad¬ 
ministrations of these laws, to make these foreigners feel that 
they are not getting a fair and square deal in this country. 

I lay this before you with the hope that this proposition will 
have weight and will lead to action by the President of the 
United States to appoint a commission that should make a 
thorough investigational study not only of immigration today, 
but as to the value of the various foreign groups that have come 
here, have settled here, and who remain here to build their 
homes, and their future. 

Chairman Lindsay: I am sorry not to be able to remain 
with you but I am due at another meeting and must go. Before 
I do, however, I desire to have the opportunity of expressing 
my appreciation of the work that the National Industrial Con¬ 
ference Board has done. 

There is really no need for a National Commission, except 
for the fact that it would be an authoritative thing with the 
sanction of Congress and therefore Congress might listen to its 
own Commission in a way that it might not possibly listen to 
the National Industrial Conference Board, or any private and 
outside unofficial agency. But such a commission, if appointed, 
if the suggestion is carried out, and Congress decides that it 
needs a wider inquiry, will, I know, turn at the very outset to 
the admirable work that the Conference Board has done, and 
will find that a good deal of work that ought to be done right 
now by such a Commission has already been done for it. 

210 


Mrs. William Cumming Story took the Chair, on invitation of 
Mr. Alexander. 

Mrs. Story: May I be permitted to say that I deeply 
regret any spirit of antagonism, any attributed spirit of feeling 
of antagonism or criticism, that may be in the minds or the 
hearts of any of the people present. I do not think that any class 
wants to be credited with a feeling of antagonism to the foreign 
element in this country. I am quite sure that those of most 
ancient lineage in this country are trying to be true to the 
principles of its foundation, and that their hearts are wide open, 
and they desire to receive the worthy contributions of every 
nation. I hope, in the interests of progress, that we will be able 
to eliminate and ignore any spirit that is contrary to that I 
have expressed. 

The discussion of Question IV was then continued by the Reverend 

Doctor Percy Stickney Grant, Church of the Ascension, representing 
the National Liberal Immigration League. 

Dr. Grant: I have sometimes thought that the societies 
in America in the future which represented the proudest strain 
of our citizenship would be made up of those whose ancestors 
came here last, because the more recent immigrants were repre¬ 
sentative of those whose people had endured the difficulties of 
Europe for a longer period, say two or three hundred years 
longer than your ancestors and mine. 

I want to remind those who are interested in the report of 
the Immigration Commission of 1907 and 1910, that there was 
an excellent one-volume resume of those forty-one reports, I 
think, made by Professor Jenks and Mr. Lauck. It was a most 
readable volume, and it was a most optimistic volume. 

My particular qualification for speaking on the subject might 
appear to come from one or two directions. 

For the first seven years of my ministry, I worked among the 
Lancastershire cotton operatives of Fall River. I call them 
“Lancastershire” because that is where they either directly 
came from or they were the children of Lancastershire 
operators. Also, in the City of Fall River, there was a very 
large French-Canadian population and in the neighboring city of 
New Bedford there was a very large Portuguese population, 
so that the qualities of those races as individuals were very 
much in front of me for seven years of constant and closest rela¬ 
tionship with the working people in the textile industry. I be- 

211 


came very fond of those people with whom I was associated, 
and came to have a very high appreciation of their native quali¬ 
ties, of their ambitions, and of their political ideals. 

I find, in thinking of this subject, that I feel so much is not 
done for the immigrant after he gets over here. It isn’t a simple 
problem of selection at the port of embarkation. It isn’t a 
problem of registration over here altogether. Whenever I have 
been to Ellis Island I have been enormously impressed with the 
vigor of the people who got off there. Now this country cer¬ 
tainly needs muscle and perseverance, and all these gifts, to 
build it up. 

When I lived in Fall River, the Massachusetts operative had 
to work fifty-four hours a week and keep up with machinery. 
The ordinary newspaper-reading, office-attending business man 
doesn’t know what keeping up with machinery means for fifty- 
four hours a week. I believe the number of hours is less now in 
Massachusetts. 

There is so much that this country could do for those people. 
Our system of education doesn’t consider, it seems to me, their 
needs. It doesn’t consider the individual right of the children 
of those people to be educated. Consider the lack of seats and 
the confusion of system in the schools of the City of New York. 

Look at the housing problem in relation to these people. The 
men who are working for you and me are the dirtiest fellows. 
They haven’t a chance to wash. I remember the Gilder Com¬ 
mission on Tenement Houses, now a long time ago; but the facts 
haven’t been changed so much. It found that you could almost 
count on your fingers the number of bathtubs in a population 
of 367,000 on the axis of Canal Street. 

In these and other directions, America has much definitely to 
do for the immigrant, and hasn’t any right to be so awfully 
particular about an individual that is needed industrially when 
that individual can be changed in many of the characteristics 
that may not be so altogether admired when he enters. 

One of the speakers, I think it was Mr. Fay of Massachusetts, 
said that he had never heard of any laborers being imported 
that made the contract labor law necessary, etc. Now, when I 
lived in Fall River, it was well known that there were influences 
coming from the manufacturers which encouraged and assisted 
immigration from the Province of Quebec in Canada, and that 
there were influences in the neighboring town of New Bedford 

212 


which encouraged and assisted immigration from the Azore 
Islands; and during the strike at Lawrence, it was a common 
statement and acknowledged, and literature to that effect was 
put in our hands, that the textile manufacturers of Massa¬ 
chusetts advertised in Europe the advantages of positions in 
Massachusetts, and in other ways encouraged people over there 
to come to the Massachusetts mills. I was talking with the 
Chairman of the Committee on Textiles for this part of the world 
during the war. He said that almost every request made upon 
his Board during the war was granted, because all those people 
who had been encouraged to come over here had received notori¬ 
ously small wages, much below the standard in other occupations 
in this country. 

Now my feeling is that, instead of fixing such an eagle eye 
upon the immigrant, we should fix rather more eagle eyes on 
ourselves and what we are doing for the immigrant. All the 
immigrants that I have seen have been a sturdy kind of people, 
that many of us would like to be personally, physically, our¬ 
selves; and the mental root of power so largely comes from ac¬ 
cumulated physical strength. A man out in Chicago by the 
name of Reading wrote a book called “Dynamic Evolution.” 
He says that genius is nothing but the final outcrop of the sav¬ 
ings of your ancestors in the handling of their lives. It is some¬ 
thing that you can expect to come from the fellow who builds 
stone walls and digs in the dirt and then doesn’t waste too much 
of the mental and physical vigor that comes to him from such 
intimate contact and such daily contact with nature as that. 
I should say that those were the people that we particularly 
wanted here, especially as the native stock seems so shy of per¬ 
petuating itself. 

I thank the Chairman for giving me this opportunity to stand 
here. If I had expected to speak I should have prepared myself 
in a more consecutive way, but let me at any rate, give everyone 
of you to understand that I am a very hearty believer in every¬ 
thing that is represented by the words “Liberal Immigration.” 
In the forum that we conducted at the Church of the Ascension 
for fifteen years (that was finally silenced by ecclesiastical au¬ 
thority) we also had contact with a great many foreign-born 
people, and one of my vestrymen, whose son was in Princeton 
College, after listening to these young men for several Sunday 
nights, said: “Well, neither my son nor any of his friends could 

213 


either think or speak as these young men do.” For a number of 
years their fashion of speaking was the ridicule of the New York 
Sun and the New York Times Monday morning, because they 
happened to use the English language often in a funny way. 
I have just come from the New York University where two or 
three dozen young fellows, everyone of whom came from some 
immediate foreign ancestry, were listening to a man talking 
about government ownership, and I rather think that the future 
is very much in the hands of such intelligence and such deter¬ 
mination to know all the facts of life and not just the facts with 
regard to this one subject of the foreigner at Ellis Island. 

Dr. Antonio Stella } of the Medical Society of the County of New York. 

Dr. Stella: I beg leave to offer a suggestion on the last 
two paragraphs of Question IV, regarding practical methods of 
selection and suggestions for an adequate program of immigra¬ 
tion. The suggestion I beg to offer is to consider immigration in 
its two main aspects, temporary and permanent immigration. 

I feel that one obvious and easy way to solve the problem of 
immigration and dispose of all the worries about social in¬ 
adequacy and many other very proper concerns, is to divide this 
great movement into these two large divisions, and I would 
suggest that the United States Government adopt two different 
policies in regard to the temporary and permanent immigration, 
consider these as two things, and distinguish one from another. 

The obsession is present in many people, that all immigrants 
have to become citizens, and this compulsory citizenship idea 
is bound to have a reaction. Most likely a movement will soon 
be started not to Americanize everyone wholesale, but to stop a 
moment and consider whether that is really good for the body 
politic of America. 

There is no doubt that two main facts are evident before 
everyone considering the question of immigration, namely, that 
this vast country is not fully developed in proportion to its size, 
and that the great wealth of this country is due to immigration. 
The other factor is, that a great many workers are willing 
to come to this country from Europe to do that work, the funda¬ 
mental work which no native-born American is willing to do. 

If these two conditions are admitted, there is no reason why 
these people, who are willing to come here to work and exchange 
their brawn and muscles for American dollars and enrich this 


214 


country and increase the wealth and prosperity of America, 
should not be allowed to come and return when they please, 
without being asked or forced to become citizens. 

I do feel that there is danger in the promiscuous mixing of so 
many races in citizenship. Whether the Nordic supremacy is 
right or wrong, this country has the right to impose restrictions 
and make laws according to its best interest, and the whole 
world should be in sympathy with this attitude. It is the per¬ 
fect and proper right of a nation to enact special laws for its 
conservation or preservation. Sometimes race superiority only 
means that another race is different. In other words, it doesn’t 
necessarily mean that Nordic superiority will consider some of 
the southern European or eastern European races entirely in¬ 
ferior, but that they are different. 

The solution of this problem should be, in my mind, to adopt 
very strict legislation for citizenship. Make it very, very diffi¬ 
cult, just as it is in Europe. This country has passed the pioneer 
stage, and there is no reason why it should not adopt the same 
policy as Italy, or Germany, or France, or England, where it is 
very, very difficult to become a citizen. 

On the other hand, laws for admission of immigrants for sea¬ 
sonal work should be made very easy and very flexible. They 
should be adopted in consideration of the economic needs of the 
country, and only those workingmen should be allowed to come 
that cannot be found in this country. 

There is a tremendous mass of evidence accumulated to show 
that the group of the foreign-born has contributed to the social 
inadequacy of the country. I tried to prove last night, but I 
did not have sufficient time, that even those statistical tables 
are misleading, because of the fundamental error made in the 
beginning, of including the negro population with the white. 

Leaving aside the results, it is evident that many of these 
people coming to this country only come to get work, and are 
always ready to return. The “birds of passage” relieve this 
country of much responsibility and much worry for the future. 
There is no doubt, however, that even for that class of immi¬ 
grants, this country should adopt the present restrictive measure 
as to the classes of undesirables that the present law will exclude 
automatically. But it is wrong to believe that the immigrants 
are increasing criminality, importing diseases, and bringing in¬ 
sanity and all forms of infections. They could not bring them 

215 


in if they wanted to, because the restrictions and the examina¬ 
tions at the port of embarkation and at the port of debarkation 
are so rigid that very few can escape. If there is a great deal or 
a certain amount of insanity or disease among immigrants, it 
is the result of their long residence in this country and it can 
be proven that many of these people who have acquired lues 
or tuberculosis have acquired it in the United States. 

One word about tuberculosis. I want to say that one feature 
of that disease as we see it among the immigrants may be called 
the “occupational” feature. In other words, it is acquired and 
contracted in those trades and occupations which produce 
tuberculosis. 

The United States Government should impose the respon¬ 
sibility of selecting immigrants on the different governments 
where immigrants come from. Since there has been great pub¬ 
licity given to an article entitled “Jails or Passports,” which 
has repeated the old belief that the foreign countries are dumping 
all their criminals on these shores, it is time to call attention to 
the fact that at least one country for twenty or twenty-five years 
has adopted the method of not giving a passport to any immi¬ 
grant unless he can show a clean bill. That is what they call 
the “Penal Sheet.” The “Penal Sheet” is a certificate from the 
authorities in which it must appear that the prospective immi¬ 
grant has not served time, even for overnight, in jail. Only on 
that condition does the country give a passport. 

I think that this method adopted by Italy should be enforced 
by all other nations. This old apprehension that the foreign 
nations of Europe are dumping criminals here has no foundation. 

In conclusion, I would make a plea for the adoption by the 
government of two separate policies and methods of regulating 
temporary and permanent immigration, as being two things 
apart. These great tests, psychological tests, literacy tests, 
and all other tests, should be applied at the time of application 
for citizenship, but moderation should be used in the admission 
of immigrants, especially regarding the contract labor law. 

If I may say a word on that, I say that that clause is the 
greatest present obstacle to the proper diffusion of immigrants 
outside of the large cities. We always complain of that con¬ 
gestion and concentration in cities, which is justified. Now you 
cannot compel prospective immigrants coming here to go to the 
country, away from the cities, unless you show them the ad- 

216 


vantages of settling in the country. Therefore, the contract 
labor clause at the present moment is inconsistent with the idea 
of diffusing immigrants through the country. 

The Canadian policy should be adopted. Canada knows what 
kind of immigrants she wants. She sends for them and admits 
them. In that way you can solve scientifically and reasonably 
the problem of immigration. 

Mr. W. M. Willett of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco , Cal. 

Mr. W. M. Willett: I am a member of the Commonwealth 
Club, but I do not represent it. I had no idea that this meeting 
was to be held, or this convention was being held, at the time 
I left home. However, in considering and listening to what has 
been said here, there are a number of questions which particu¬ 
larly struck home to me. 

It seems that almost all of the speakers seem to treat it as a 
question affecting one or another particular class of people who 
have come to this country. It seems to me that the fundamental 
proposition here is to look and see what is best for the United 
States. It doesn’t make any difference if the general policy 
which is the best for this country strikes hard at some particular 
class. They must stand by whatever is best for all of us, whether 
it affects the foreign class here in New York or in other parts 
of the country. 

In the first place, we should decide whether we want any more 
immigrants at all; in the next place, when they come, whether 
we are going to allow them to become citizens. Why a man or 
woman who has spent only five years, and in many cases only 
two, in this country, should be allowed to vote and take part 
in the government of this country, when our own native-born 
citizens must stay twenty-one years, is a question that I never 
could understand. I am frank to say that I thoroughly dis¬ 
approve of it. 

In reference to some of the questions that have been brought 
up here, they say that Los Angeles, in California, is the second 
largest Mexican city in the world, and that New York is the 
largest Jewish city in the world. I had always thought that both 
of them were in the United States, but it seems not, and it 
seems to me, that before we allow any more to come in, we 
should find out whether those that are in are Americans or are 
tied up in sentiment, in loyalty, to the country from which 
they came. 


217 


One gentleman complains of the fact that the foreign citizens 
have been discriminated against. I had the pleasure of sitting 
on the bench in my native state for a number of years. I have 
heard testimony given by natives, naturalized citizens and 
foreigners, both before a jury and before a court, and I have 
never in any way seen any discrimination, and I don’t believe 
that there is any discrimination to any foreigner who comes to 
this country and pursues the ordinary course of business or the 
ordinary course of life. If, on the other hand, a man who has 
hardly landed here proceeds to get into politics, desires to 
change the Constitution and the laws and to tell those that are 
here that they must follow out his idea which he has imbibed in 
his home country, I think that that man has no business, and 
he should be discouraged in any activities along that line he is 
engaged in. 

The statement was made by the Reverend Dr. Grant, that 
the native American would not work. Among other things that 
I have been engaged in was in railroad construction. I have had 
sometimes as many as five thousand men at work for the con¬ 
cern of which I am a part. While I found the native American 
more independent, we have always found that we can pay the 
American at least a dollar a day more, and it pays. 

On the other hand, there are certain occupations into which 
Americans will not go, and I may say that foreigners will not 
go either. In California, we raise a great deal of asparagus, and 
it is generally raised by tenant farmers on a percentage basis. 
After the Chinese Exclusion Act was put in force, and no further 
Chinese were allowed to come to this country, we were driven 
to get other tenants. We found, however, that there was no 
other class of people that would get down on their hands and 
knees and weed, except the Chinese. The result has been that a 
great deal of the land which was used for the cultivation of 
asparagus has been given up, although the demand has increased. 
In my part of the country, we depend a great deal on Mexican 
labor for what is called “common labor.” Those men come and 
go. They are not citizens. 

In closing, I only wish to say that we have a problem of our 
own. We have the Japanese. We are opposed to them not 
because they are Japanese, but because they do not assimilate. 
I think that the principle should be followed all over this country 
that whatever class of people come here, where they con- 

218 


gregate together, where their customs, where their whole feeling 
is that they will not join in with the general customs and the 
general feeling of entire country, those people should not be 
allowed to come to this country. 

Mr. Giuseppe Vitelli, representing the Italian Chamber of Commerce of New 
York City,presented the following statement on thequestion under discussion: 

IV. We are in sympathy with the appointment by the 
President of an investigatory commission under congressional 
resolution to inquire and report on the conditions and needs of 
immigration, its distribution and assimilation, provided of 
course the work is done in a thoroughly exhaustive way and by 
an unbiased commission composed of representatives of the 
economic interests of this country. 

Having thus answered the various questions contained in the 
program of the Conference, this Chamber desires to call your 
attention to the fact that this country’s development and pros¬ 
perity in the past thirty years, remarkable as it is, would have 
been impossible had it not benefited from the advantage of a 
healthy immigration which supplied the necessary labor to 
construct and develop industry. It is worth noting also that 
our progress was far greater in the thirty years subsequent to 
1890 than it was in those prior, which rather speaks well for our 
latest acquisition of man power through immigration. This is 
one good reason why there is no justification for the present 
agitation to base the immigration quotas on the foreign-born 
population existing in the United States in 1890 rather than at 
present. 

We have always believed and still believe that the regulation 
of immigration is a natural process which should be left to itself, 
as it will regulate itself automatically. Emigrants would stop 
coming here the moment they found employment here difficult 
or impossible. Any person who comes to our land and finds 
employment and who works and produces, becomes an asset of 
the country. However, we are not unmindful of the unique 
and enviable position in which the United States today finds 
herself, a land of peace and plenty, while in Europe, from whence 
has always come the greatest bulk of our immigrants, the un¬ 
settled political situation in several of the late belligerent coun¬ 
tries and, in general, the disturbed and unsettled industrial and 
economic conditions prevailing there as the aftermath of the 

219 


war, give rise to grave fears in some quarters that, unless some 
provision is made to thwart it, we are likely soon to be inun¬ 
dated by a flood of emigrants from those distressed shores. The 
fear of this has made many unduly apprehensive and has given 
impetus to a too great spirit of provincialism. This country 
could not have developed and reached its present exalted state 
of prosperity under the guidance of such a narrow spirit, and it 
cannot expect to expand or continue its present position unless 
broader and saner counsels prevail. 

If we feel that some legislation is needed in the present so- 
called emergency to safeguard us from an unexpected undue 
migration to our shores, let us approach our problem in a sober 
and deliberate manner and without the undue passion and appre¬ 
hension lately so manifest. If it be necessary, let us frame some 
legislation, not with the foolish desire to prohibit immigration, 
but in the spirit of counsel and cooperation and with a desire 
to adopt what is best fitted to the needs and in the interest of 
the country. 

The present quota law restricting immigration has proven 
itself not always fitted to our needs and requires amendments. 
Many unfortunate incidents connected with its enforcement 
have met with popular disapproval. The public has soured 
and tired of families separated, of the multitude of technicalities 
and of the unhappy return of deserving and prospective immi¬ 
grants. 

What is most needed in the country today is labor, especially 
common and unskilled. The supply of this has always been 
drawn from immigration. The present law has not only proven 
inadequate in supplying this want, but has actually decreased 
our available supply. During the period of its operation more 
men have left the country than entered it, so that its operation 
reveals a net loss to us of man power. 

To entertain legislation, as is now by some proposed, that 
would further restrict this immigration, would be madness in 
the extreme. 

Mr. W. C. Smith , Chief of the Bureau of Immigrant Education of New 
York State , representing the State Department of Education, and 
the State Directors of Immigrant Education. 

Mr. W. C. Smith: I want to address myself to one or two 
particular phases of Question IV, and possibly of Question III, 
because I happened to miss it this morning. 

220 


I want to say in the beginning, representing as I do the State 
Department of Immigrant Education of the State of New York, 
and the group of State Directors of Education in a half a dozen 
states on the Atlantic Coast, I think I can speak with authority 
for the largest group of people that are doing the largest assimi¬ 
lative work among the immigrants of the Atlantic seaboard 
that has been done from the standpoint of the public schools. 

I wish that we might magnify just a little more than we have 
had magnified thus far, in these concluding remarks, the tre¬ 
mendous responsibility of the public school system of the United 
States and what it is doing to meet these very needs of which so 
many have spoken from this platform. It seems to have been 
overlooked that we have so many of the foreign-born in our 
evening schools. I have just been looking over the statistics, 
for instance, and find that there are 6,000 students in the State 
of Rhode Island, 12,000 in Connecticut, 27,000 in Massachu¬ 
setts, 40,000 in Pennsylvania and 95,000 people in the State of 
New York right now doing the work of acquiring the assimilative 
qualities that are necessary to make good citizens, first in English 
and then in citizenship—the largest piece of work probably 
that has been done in an official capacity toward meeting the 
situation which you bring up in your Question IV, as to what 
shall be done as to practical methods of selecting, distributing 
and assimilating the immigrants. 

The part of that program which is most feasible in the public 
schools has been always a question of sympathetic understanding 
of the problems which the foreign-born bring to this country. 
Many of you may hark back to an exhibit which we had in this 
city only two years ago in which we brought together the 
thirty-five various races in this city in the festival and pageant 
of “America’s Making.” This was one of the finest things that 
has ever been done in this city toward the very thing which 
the speakers have spoken of this afternoon—recognizing the 
splendid gifts of the foreign-born to this city. I don’t know 
whether the gentlemen who spoke here were in that exhibit or 
not, but I happened to have a very small part in bringing that 
about, and I want to tell you that there hasn’t happened a 
condition in which the contributions and the harmony of these 
people have been emphasized as they were in that exhibit. 

The Conference here has emphasized a great many varied 
notions on these questions which we have discussed. It seems 

221 


to me that the National Conference Board has done a very 
splendid piece of work in bringing these various notes together. 
It seems to me that out of the community of opinion we have 
had expressed here there grows the necessity of a commission, 
board or bureau, which will take the material which has been 
discussed here and lay it before Congress so that we may hope 
to have a constructive policy of immigrant education, of selec¬ 
tion, or, if I may say so, selection first and assimilation after, in a 
constructive way, using the various agencies which we have at 
our disposal now. 

On the question of registration, without committing either 
the Department or the group of State Directors, it seems to 
me that a very important angle of that work must be done with 
the public schools. I think that before we rush on to the ques¬ 
tion of registration in this city alone, which would require 
504,000 aliens to register, we had better think of the agencies 
and the administration of a law that will adequately arrange 
that these people may be taken care of when they come. 

I would like to emphasize the fact that the assimilability of 
the foreign-born is largely a question of spirit, of attitude, of 
program, of adequate recognition of the many splendid gifts 
which they have. 

The program that has been constructed and organized in these 
five or six states where state directors of immigrant education 
are now in charge is an all-around program developed along 
the line of evening school work, of factory classes, of classes in 
the home, of classes in neighborhoods and settlements. The 
program has been an all-around program, attempting to reach 
every need. In the City of New York a vast number of classes 
are organized and it would do your heart good to see some of 
those classes in operation. It is quite true that in many of the 
isolated places our programs have had to be developed in the 
last two or three years, and we can’t give a plush chair to every 
immigrant that comes into our evening schools, but the ten¬ 
dency is toward bettering the conditions. I want to tell you 
that there has been no such improvement in the making of 
textbooks in any branch of elementary education in the last 
ten years as has been made in the last three years in the making 
of textbooks for immigrant education. 

I don’t know whether Dr. Grant can be quoted quite rightly 
with regard to the number of bathtubs among 367,000 people 

222 


in a district, but I want to tell you that I come from a city, 
Albany, where they tell me they sold more bathtubs to Italians 
in the last year than they have sold to all the other people in 
Albany put together. 

I am quite sure that part of the program which we have or¬ 
ganized here must be done in the public schools. I want the 
public schools to have a very large share. I want them to give 
an adequate program in all of the work which you are attempting 
to do. Let it be assumed that if the voice of industry speaks, 
and the voice of labor, the voice of the schools must also be 
heard, and the various clubs and organizations and unofficial 
activities represented in the groups that are interested in immi¬ 
grant education. An adequate program of immigrant education 
in the schools is one of the very great conditions which must 
be worked out by a commission in organizing and putting before 
the country the facts of the assimilability of the foreign-born. 

I wish I might tell you the story of a great many of the foreign- 
born that are coming into our schools, and using the oppor¬ 
tunities which are open day and night. I wish I could tell you 
of the great piece of emergency work that is being done in the 
City of New York, where the program of immigrant education 
is so large that the city schools can’t take care of the women 
in the homes; and of the great work which an emergency com¬ 
mittee is doing in raising a sufficient sum of money to carry the 
message to 2,000 women in the homes, whose light would be 
blinded if that work were not done. While you are thinking of 
the immigrant in the industry, I don’t want you to forget his 
wife and family at home, and the mother who is neglected be¬ 
cause she can’t have a part in the evening schools or in the day 
classes and who must have the message brought to her in her 
home. Don’t neglect the 300,000 women in the State of New 
York who don’t know what it is all about, because they haven’t 
heard the message yet and don’t know how to express them¬ 
selves. 

I think the Conference Board has done a great piece of work, 
even though we haven’t been able to crystallize the sentiment. 
There is no doubt in the minds of the people here who have 
been through the four sessions as to where the Conference 
stands on the question of selective immigration, where it stands 
on the question of registration. I hope that it stands four 

223 


square on the question of immigrant education as well as on 
the question of selective immigration on the other side. 

Chairman Story: I would like to voice what I know is 
the feeling of a great many people here as to the extreme value 
of the Conference. It has been most inspiring. Educationally it 
has been illuminating, and I am sure that a patriotic spirit has 
pervaded the sessions that have been held. I think we have 
reason to feel greatly indebted to the Director and the institu¬ 
tion for this educational work that has been accomplished by 
this Conference. 


Adjournment 


Under the rules of the Conference it had been stipulated that no motions 
relating to the immigration question would be entertained. At the 
opening of the Friday Morning Session, and at the close of the Confer¬ 
ence, however, the following general motions expressing appreciation of 
the Conference were offered and unanimously carried. 

Mr. C. E. Bennett , Director of Adult Elementary Education , 
Schenectady , New York. 

Resolved that, 

First: We commend the National Industrial Conference 
Board for calling this conference on this perhaps the most im¬ 
portant domestic topic today. 

Second: We express our sincere thanks for the unusual 
courtesy extended to the delegates. 

Third: We recommend to the National Industrial Confer¬ 
ence Board that they call similar conferences when important 
topics are before the nation. 

Mr. Harry E. Stone of the Rotary Club of West Virginia. 

I move you that our appreciation and thanks be extended to 
the National Industrial Conference Board for making possible 
this opportunity for the exchange of ideas on the important 
subject of immigration. 


224 


Addresses by Hon. E. J. Henning, Assistant Secretary 
of the United States Department of Labor 

During the first session of the Conference , after discussion by several 
individuals of matters more or less controversial , the Chairman called 
upon Mr. E. J. Henning } Assistant Secretary of Labor , and asked him 
whether or not he desired to discuss the question at issue. 

Mr. E. J. Henning: Frankly, I do not think I want to en¬ 
gage in this discussion. I am here as an unofficial listening post, 
anxious to learn. I want to know what the public sentiment on 
this question is. There is no place in America where it is more 
difficult to know public sentiment than at the capital in Wash¬ 
ington. The citizens of the District of Columbia are not voters 
and therefore public questions are not discussed among them as 
by the citizens generally. The public officer learns little from 
the citizen who visits Washington, because he usually comes for 
the purpose of securing some order or ruling and presents a 
biased view of what people think on a given subject. I am de¬ 
lighted to have the opportunity of coming here, particularly to 
listen to what you all have to say. I congratulate the National 
Industrial Conference Board upon this progressive step by which 
they bring together the thinkers on this subject of immigration. 
From this I hope to learn in a measure what the American people 
think on this subject of the movements of the races and peoples 
of the world from place to place. 

As an administrative officer I have no concern in the con¬ 
troversial discussions. I may not concern myself with the 
political angles that these discussions may assume. The Con¬ 
gress of the United States, made up of men and women chosen 
by you, the citizens of the country, determine all policies and 
then adopt laws in harmony with these policies. We, the execu¬ 
tive officers, enforce these laws without prejudice or fear or favor, 
fully according to the letter and spirit of these laws. We are 
assuming in the Department of Labor that the spirit of laws that 
deal with the human factor is somewhat different from the 
spirit of laws which deal only with commercial subjects or bales 
of cotton. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I presume you do not want me to 
proceed. I, however, want to say that I am delighted with 
what I have heard so far in this conference. I hope that we will 

225 


some day reach the point where we will segregate the economic 
question of the supply of wage earners for our industry from the 
question of our national destiny. Why should these constantly 
be combined ? I trust the National Industrial Conference 
Board will some day make a survey of the available man power 
in America as related to our industry. Mr. Cheney truly said a 
moment ago that we have in America great reservoirs of unused 
man power. 

Take for example the Appalachian Mountain sections of the 
United States. Thousands upon thousands of American-born 
men are found there practically not performing any labor. 
They live in those sections out of touch with American industry 
and American enterprise, for all practical purposes aliens to our 
economic and industrial life. We should marshal our manpower 
and learn how to use it properly rather than to work towards 
great crowds of unemployed standing at the gates of industry. 
It is a great economic waste to have thousands of people em¬ 
ployed but a few months when industry is keen and then have 
them unemployed during the remaining months of the year 
when industry is slow. 

We were told about eight months ago that there was a demand 
in America for a million unskilled men which could not be sup¬ 
plied. Had we added a million to the roll of wage earners by 
bringing them from foreign countries there would today be an 
unemployment in this country of more than a million. The fact 
is there is the beginning of unemployment in the United States 
right now, and we shall feel it more or less in January and Febru¬ 
ary of next year. Had we brought the extra million and em¬ 
ployed them for the few months when they were needed, they 
or Americans whose places they would have taken would be 
walking the streets of our cities this very day, and we would have 
a much lower degree of prosperity than we are enjoying. 

Again I say, let us separate and segregate the purely economic 
question of manpower from the question of our future as a 
nation. I think we are on the way. There can be no more im¬ 
portant question for America now or hereafter than the ques¬ 
tion: Who shall be the people of the United States now, to¬ 
morrow, a century from now, a hundred centuries from now ? 


226 


At the conclusion of the afternoon session of December 13 the Chairman 
called upon Mr. Henning , with the request that he discuss the separate 
propositions on the day's program dealing with the administration of the 
immigration law , according to his experience in administering the law. 

Mr. Henning: May I be permitted to remark, before going 
into what the Chairman has requested, that this matter of 
distribution of aliens is one of the most difficult. Some of our 
people in the Department of Labor have given much thought 
and study to this during the past three or four years but have 
achieved no results whatever. 

One of the dominant notes of today has been the declaration 
that members of families of men and women already in America 
should be allowed to come regardless of quota and other restric¬ 
tions. The fact is you cannot expect to control the distribution 
of arriving aliens when you limit very largely the coming of 
aliens to relatives and friends of people who are now here. 
These newcomers will go where their relatives and friends are. 
That is but natural. You cannot distribute them anywhere 
except to their friends and relatives. In the two and one-half 
years that I have been connected with the Department of Labor 
we have received probably a million and a quarter alien immi¬ 
grants in this country. The cases of many of these have come 
to us on appeal. My personal observation is that every one 
of these arrived with a definite destination in mind, with their 
tickets all bought and reservations booked to their point of 
destination, the home of a relative, of a friend, or the place 
designated by some organization in this country. It is the 
experience that when anyone at our immigrant stations en¬ 
deavors to divert these people to places other than their pre¬ 
viously determined destination, the aliens regard them with 
suspicion and look upon them as sharks and slickers, against 
whom they have been warned. The alien has his destination 
determined before he leaves Europe, and that is the place where 
he will go. 

One of the speakers today suggested that the East Side of 
New York is the rendezvous of the unemployed, but that in¬ 
vestigation shows there are few able-bodied men among them. 
The truth is, friends, the immigration flow of the last three years 
has not brought us many able-bodied men. Early last spring 
the employment manager of one of America’s largest employers 
of labor came to my office with blood in his eye, raising the 
dickens because, as he said, we were killing American industry 

227 


by the restrictive legislation which is keeping American industry 
from securing the labor it requires. He, of course, overlooked 
the fact that the Department of Labor does not make the laws 
and only enforces the laws given us by Congress. 

I suggested to this man, however, that he go to Ellis Island 
and watch the stream of incoming aliens as they pass from the 
barges into the buildings of that station, make a careful count 
and estimate, and then come back and tell me how many people 
out of every hundred who walked the plank would fill his require¬ 
ments for manpower in his company’s plants. He went and 
stayed a week. On his return he told me that the five or six 
days spent at Ellis Island had taught him more on this subject 
of immigration as related to manpower than all the years of 
reading and thinking. He said that at times he found groups 
out of which he might take twenty per hundred, but that prob¬ 
ably after re-checking he could take only ten out of a hundred, 
and that on an average he probably could not use more than 
five out of every one hundred people who entered. 

It had never before occurred to this advocate of the wide 
open policy that for every person he felt would be a producing 
factor, there would be at least ten dependents. He frankly ad¬ 
mitted that he had changed his whole theory on the subject. 

It is elemental that every person who produces less than he 
consumes is an economic liability and that only he who produces 
more than he consumes is an asset. It is of the utmost impor¬ 
tance to the economic interests of any government that every 
adult individual shall engage in useful labor during every rea¬ 
sonable hour of every working day. Every unemployed person, 
be it man, woman or child, is a tax on industry. Labor is human, 
and human beings must be fed and housed and clothed regard¬ 
less of whether or not they produce. Someone must carry the 
unemployed regardless of the reason for his unemployment, 
and the cost of that must necessarily find its way ultimately into 
the overhead of industry in the form of some tax or of unusually 
high charges of some kind. 

The annual report of the Secretary of Labor for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1923, was released for publication yester¬ 
day. I earnestly recommend to each of you that you read that 
report, particularly the second section thereof. It shows, 
among other things, that the United States Public Health 
Service has made a survey with reference to the inhabitants of 

228 


insane asylums in New York State. This survey shows that 
44.8% of mental patients in institutions were foreign-born. 
Another survey made for the House Committee on Immigra¬ 
tion indicates that 27% of these institutional inhabitants in 
New York State are still aliens, and that thirty cents of every 
dollar raised in New York for taxes goes to the maintenance of 
these institutions for the derelicts of life. 

The first question on today’s program is: “Shall the Per 
Centum Limit Act he retained without change by extending the 
period of its operation from June 30 , 1924 , or shall it be amended 
in respect to its administrative features?” 

Mr. Alexander gave a most illuminating and comprehensive 
statement of the problem this morning in his address. He is 
in error in just one thing. He said Congress must legislate this 
winter. Well, that is not strictly correct. The quota law is 
merely in addition to the general immigration law, and if Con¬ 
gress does not legislate this winter we simply operate under the 
general law after June 30 as we did before June 30, 1921. The 
quota law is merely a limitation on numbers. If Congress does 
not act there will be no limitation on numbers after June 30 
next. However, the same restrictions as to individuals dis¬ 
qualified under existing law will continue to exist. 

If the quota law is continued in force it should be amended 
in many particulars in order to facilitate the administration of it. 
I will endeavor to point out some of these in answering other 
questions stated in today’s program. 

“Shall control over quotas for the various nationality groups be 
vested in American consular officers , etc.?” 

Offhand, I should answer, yes. Congress has often had the 
suggestion made that examination of aliens should be made 
abroad, and usually the answer has been that foreign countries 
will not consent to this. I believe it is practical to permit con¬ 
sular officers to exercise some control under a proposed system 
of immigration certificates to be issued to aliens before leaving 
their homes. 

It is true that most countries of Europe have always objected 
through their representatives in Washington whenever a Con¬ 
gressman introduced a bill looking towards selection and ex¬ 
amination of aliens abroad. Many of these countries have taken 
the position that that involved invasion of their right of sov¬ 
ereignty. 


229 


As a lawyer I have always felt that the usual international 
courtesy involved in viseing a passport cannot be refused the 
traveler, the merchant, or that class of people who do not come 
for permanent purposes. However, a different philosophy 
applies to the citizen or subject of a foreign country who comes 
here with a declared purpose of becoming a permanent resident. 
I do not think that the same situation applies in his case. There 
is much misconception in the minds of the American people on 
this important subject. It has been the practice of the world 
ever since there have been civilized countries to vise the pass¬ 
ports of citizens and subjects of free nations who desire to travel 
in the country represented by the consular officer to whom 
application is made. ‘ He can only inquire into the identity of 
the individual who presents the passport as being the same per¬ 
son mentioned therein, and as to whether or not the applicant is 
a known enemy of all government or of the country he is about 
to visit. When satisfactory proof has been made on those points, 
international ccmity requires that his passport be vised. How¬ 
ever, when an individual is about to give up his alliegiance to the 
country of his departure with the announced purpose of acquir¬ 
ing a permanent domicile and ultimate citizenship in the country 
represented by the consular agent, a wholly different situation 
arises. I have been told that law authorities of our government 
have recently adopted that view. 

I see no reason why- we cannot at present by legislative enact¬ 
ment give power to our foreign consuls to handle the proposed 
immigration certificates and determine, in the main, the admis¬ 
sibility of an immigrant before he leaves his home. That will 
constitute a more or less effective form of both examination and 
selection abroad. 

“Shall the maximum monthly quota for each nationality be fixed 
at not to exceed 10% a month instead of 20 %?” 

Frankly, I see little difference between 10% and 20%. My 
own judgment is that the annual quota should be divided into 
twelve equal monthly quotas. I can see no argument against it. 
Under such a division each month in each year will be alike 
and every year will be like every other year. It will become a 
constant uninterrupted movement and take away all incentive 
for unusual crowding or pressure for anyone to come at any 
particular time. 1 have found in discussing this with our folks 

230 


that, when first mentioned, they seem to think something must 
be wrong with it, but always and invariably they come back 
finally and say that that would be the ideal plan. 

“Shall the wife and minor children be admitted regardless of 
quota?” 

I have no hesitancy in answering “No” to that question. My 
experience teaches me that every exemption mentioned in the 
quota law is a source of misunderstanding, of attempts at de¬ 
ception, and increases manifold the difficulties of administration. 

I would have but two types of aliens: One, those who come for 
permanent purposes; and two, those who come for temporary 
purposes. I would charge to the quota every one who comes 
to remain permanently, regardless of whom he or she may be. 
If your quota is not large enough to accommodate them, make 
it larger. If 3% is too small, make it 6%, and if 6% is not suffi¬ 
cient make it 10 or 15 or 20%; but whatever you do, cut out 
exemptions so far as they relate to immigrants. It is simple 
enough to provide for preferences in the issuance of vises or im¬ 
migration certificates, and thus the wives and near relatives can 
be readily taken care of. However, in order to have practical 
administration of the law under a restrictive system you must 
have some way of knowing how many are coming. 

Last February a bill was introduced, intended as a substitute 
for the present quota law, which had many most admirable 
features. Among other things it provided for the coming, re¬ 
gardless of the quota, of certain relatives of aliens now here. 
Efforts were made to ascertain how many could come under 
those provisions, and while it is, of course, impossible to know 
definitely, the best estimates obtainable agreed that the num¬ 
ber per year under that provision could exceed two million. 
The whole thing, of course, is one of policy. If you have an 
idea that you want to determine how many aliens shall come in 
a year, then you must count every one in your quota. 

In this connection I note the last question on today’s program, 
namely: “ Shall the alien arriving after his nationality quota for 
the month has been exhausted be carried over to the next month?” 

But a few days ago Federal Judge Knox of your city said 
definitely that under existing law that cannot be done. He 
holds that the Secretary is without power under existing law to 
carry arrivals of one month into the quota of the next. By that 

231 


ruling there have been eliminated from the quota of November 
of this year more than a thousand people who had been charged 
thereto after arriving during previous months. They were the 
cases of near relatives who are given a preference in the quota 
law, and cases of most unusual hardship. 

Among them were several hundred Russian refugees who had 
been about two years on their way coming through the Orient to 
the United States. They had drifted hither and thither from 
one Oriental country to another and from one island group of 
the Pacific to another. Apparently they landed in Japan about 
a year ago for temporary purposes. American charity had sup¬ 
ported them there and was arranging to bring them here. By 
our advice they waited until June last, in the hope of arriving 
while the quota of their country was open in July. However, 
some delays occurred, and when they arrived in July they were 
all excess quota. Great appeals were made on their behalf and 
their great hardships painted in vivid colors. However, there 
was no way under the law that they could be admitted, unless 
perchance they were carried to the quota of a subsequent 
month. They all appealed to the courts, but the courts were 
without power to help them. We made many efforts to secure 
for them temporary admission in nearby countries pending the 
opening of quotas. While these matters were being considered, 
an earthquake destroyed the port of Japan from which they had 
sailed, and the only one to which we could return them. In the 
face of this catastrophe and upon the earnest pleadings of immi¬ 
gration societies of their nationality, they were admitted and 
charged to the quota for November. The purpose was to carry 
them forward as far as possible in order not to disturb the move¬ 
ment of aliens who planned on arriving in November. 

However, those who directed the coming of aliens of that 
nationality paid no attention to the surcharge on the November 
quota. About the 2d or 3d of November the quota of that 
nationality was exhausted, but others continued to come. 
The same organization which had appealed on bended knee 
for mercy for the refugees who had come by the Pacific went 
into court with the charge that the Secretary of Labor was 
without power to carry into the November quota aliens who 
arrived prior thereto. The ruling of the court is strictly within 
the law and was in accordance with what we had expected should 
the question ever get into court. The ruling definitely settles 

232 


this suggestion under present law. It also has brought about a 
situation which compels us to deport not only the Russian 
refugees of the Pacific but hundreds of others who are close 
relatives of the people who came before them. 

I can think of no change in the law that would make practical 
the carrying of aliens from one month into another. If that 
system were in vogue we should probably have on our shores 
during the first quota months several times the total annual 
quota, with the result that the whole machinery of the Govern¬ 
ment would break down and untold hardship would be visited 
upon all arriving aliens. 

“Shall resident aliens leaving the United States for temporary 
absence come back without counting in the quota?” 

It seems to me I have already answered this question so far 
as my own observation goes. In the last fiscal year we received 
approximately 15,000 people who come under that classifica¬ 
tion. Frankly, more than half of them left the United States 
to remain away permanently. They were given the benefit of 
the doubt, based largely on perjured and false statements as to 
what their purpose was when they left. We now find that these 
returning aliens claiming an exempt status bring large numbers 
of members of their families who had not been here before, on 
the theory that the wife and minor children of a man have the 
same status as the husband and father. I readily agree to that 
doctrine, but I know in my heart that a large percentage of 
those so coming with returning former residents are not their 
relatives. As before stated, I know of no reason why every 
alien should not be counted in the quota regardless of who he 
is, so long as he comes for permanent purposes. 

“Shall aliens who are professional actors , etc., be admitted with¬ 
out being charged to quota?” 

What I have said heretofore applies to this classification. If 
they are coming for temporary purposes and merely to practice 
their professions and then return, they should not be counted. 
If they come to stay, they should be. 

In that connection I may say that there is no provision in 
any present law affecting an alien, either European or Oriental, 
that compels one of an exempt status to maintain his exempt 
status while here. Thousands of Orientals who have come as 

233 


students and merchants and travelers have found their way into 
laundries and shops and domestic service to remain here per¬ 
manently, and to reproduce their race under another conflict 
of law, which makes citizens of those born here, even though 
they are of a non-naturalizable race. 

“Shall physical examination of aliens desiring to emigrate to the 
United States be at the principal ports of the other side?” 

Physical examination at the principal ports on the other side 
or any other sort of examination at those ports is of little value 
to the alien. The poor soul who has torn up his moorings some¬ 
where in central or eastern Europe, who has sold his house and 
furniture and belongings, who has packed up what he can carry, 
and has purchased transportation and taken his wife and babies 
hundreds of miles across country to a seaport, is as pitiable a 
figure when rejected there as he is when rejected at an American 
port. The fact is, those rejected at an American port are re¬ 
quired to be carried back from whence they came by the steam¬ 
ship companies without cost, and to have the passage money 
paid refunded. Thus they really are in a better position than 
those rejected at an European port a thousand miles from their 
old home. The general admissibility of an alien, either medical 
or otherwise, should be determined before he leaves his home 
town or village and before he disconnects himself from every¬ 
thing in his own country. 

“Shall other administrative modifications be made , and if so 
what?” 

That is rather a broad question. Briefly I would answer it 
this way: We want selective immigration, the selection being 
based on our own needs, requirements and best interests both 
economically and nationally, with such examination abroad as 
will substantially guarantee the admission of the alien on ar¬ 
rival. The law can be built administratively so as to bring 
about this result. Time forbids going into details, but the 
general outlines heretofore given will substantially do that. 

Somebody asked the question if I had any criticism to make 
on a bill introduced in Congress last February shortly before 
adjournment and which was looked upon as the bill of the Com¬ 
mittee on Immigration of the House. My criticism is, generally 
speaking, that it is too elaborate, that it has too much detail in 

234 


it, that it legislates on subjects that should be covered by regu¬ 
lations rather than by substantive law. To illustrate: I live 
in that wonderful city, San Diego, California. It is a long way 
from here, but it is the garden spot on earth. Some years ago 
our people decided to appoint a charter commission to draw 
a new charter. Among others I was asked to give my criticism 
of the then existing charter. My answer was that San Diego 
is a city of 75,000 inhabitants, yet the charter under which it is 
governed contains two and one-half times as many words as 
does the Constitution of the United States under which we suc¬ 
cessfully govern 110,000,000 people. I believe the fundamentals 
of that Congressional bill referred to could be stated more per¬ 
fectly if 80% fewer words were used. Outside of this criticism, 
I should say that it is the best piece of legislation on this subject 
ever proposed. 

The tendency to be prolix is in many ways the great bane of 
legislation. Laws go into so many details and lay down so 
many hard and fast rules that the act becomes almost unen¬ 
forceable. In legislating on this subject of immigration, let us 
lay down a few simple rules by way of law. Let us briefly in¬ 
corporate in the law the fundamentals, and then permit ad¬ 
ministrative officers by regulation to fill in the details. Let 
Congress settle the pure questions of policy. Let Congress say 
how many people are to come and where they are to come from, 
and then let the administrative officers be clothed with power 
to do that thing in the most practical manner. Let us give our 
foreign consuls power to give preferences in granting vises for 
immigrants, say, for example, first the wife or husband of an 
American citizen, the minor children of an American citizen, 
the parents of an American citizen, and then, in order, the same 
relatives of aliens lawfully domiciled in the United States a 
certain length of time and who apparently have come to stay. 
After that, let us lay down such other preferences as we see fit 
respecting skilled labor or unskilled labor or other types of labor. 

It is a mistaken idea that organized labor is opposed to the 
coming of either skilled or unskilled labor. It is of particular 
importance to labor that there shall not be a very great shortage 
of skilled craftsmen, because such a situation is as dangerous 
to the organized crafts as is a great oversupply. The best in¬ 
terests of all of us are conserved by a proper supply of labor at 
all times. If that can be regulated as an incident to our immigra- 

235 


tion laws, let us say so briefly, and rest this question somewhere 
as to details. 

The suggestion in the bill here discussed, of the use of an im¬ 
migration certificate is one of the most useful ever made in 
connection with restrictive immigration. Under it the Secre¬ 
tary of State might issue monthly immigration certificates for 
the different nationalities in the exact number of their quota 
and distribute them among the consular officers of the world. 
Under proper regulations the consular officers would make such 
investigation as to each alien desiring to come as would satisfy 
him of the alien’s admissibility, including his physical, mental 
and moral condition. With this certificate the alien can come 
at his convenience with the practical assurance of admission. 
He of course would still be subject to all the requirements of 
our laws and meet all the tests imposed. The qualified alien, 
of course, would have no difficulty in meeting these tests. 

Summing it all up, with a few simple changes in the present 
plan, with the provision for an immigrant certificate before the 
alien departs his home, with a very brief concise law, the policies 
of Congress can be administered without the hardships incident 
to the present law and to the best interests of the American 
people. 

At the conclusion of the morning session, December 14 , the Chair again 
called upon Mr. Henning to address himself to the detailed topics of that 
session from the standpoint of one who has been administering the present 
law. 

Mr. Henning: About a month ago I spoke in this hall on 
some phases of immigration. I took occasion then to refer to 
an incident of some months ago when one of America’s most 
distinguished manufacturers announced that history is all bunk. 
I referred to the fact that historians everywhere promptly took 
issue with this American manufacturer, and commented that 
the truth lay somewhere between the two extreme cases made 
by the contending sides. My purpose in referring to the incident 
as stated was to draw attention to the fact that all of us are 
inclined to take a narrow view of most issues; that all of us look 
at things through a knothole and see but a small side or angle 
of the real problem. We all insist that our view of the issue is 
the only possible one. 

It is conferences like this one that make it possible for us to 
get a broader horizon and a more complete conception of the 

236 


various dimensions of a problem. I have been delighted at the 
liberal and broad attitude of most of the men and women who 
have spoken here at this conference. 

May I be permitted to say a word in the nature of a personal 
privilege. When first called upon yesterday I carefully stated 
that I must refrain from discussing anything which might be 
in the nature of a national policy on the subject of immigration, 
saying that matters of policy belong to Congress, and that, as 
an executive officer charged with the enforcement of such laws 
as Congress may adopt, I could not discuss policy questions.. 
However, when I left this room at the close of the yesterday 
afternoon session I was surprised to note in one of your wonder¬ 
ful New York papers the statement that I was here as the leader 
of a bloc who insists that the quota law shall be re-enacted, 
based upon a certain per cent of those in the country under the 
census of 1900. 

To say that I was astounded at this statement is putting it 
mildly, and I am wholly at a loss where it could have come from. 
The thing is more remarkable in view of the fact that were I to 
express a personal opinion it would be entirely different than 
what the paper attributed to me. However, since I have been 
so careful to refrain from entering that field, I could not under¬ 
stand why such words were put into my mouth. I am sure that 
the only way it could have happened was that some one gave 
somebody else’s statement to one of these splendid newspaper 
boys as a statement coming from me, he not having been here 
when I spoke. I was a pencil-pusher myself once upon a time 
and have the greatest admiration for the newspaper boys. I 
know they are always more than anxious to get at the real facts 
and that they would not wilfully make a misstatement. Some¬ 
times, however, they must depend on others for their informa¬ 
tion as to what occurred at a certain place, and so I expect this 
happened in that way. 

Yesterday I attempted to give you what information I could 
with reference to the various questions on the program which 
dealt almost exclusively with administrative matters. The 
subjects on the program today are of a little different type. So 
far as they enter the field of policy, I must refrain from dis¬ 
cussing them. 

The first one is: “Shall a federal immigration board be created 

237 


to regulate the flow of immigration to the United States under 
whatever immigration law is in effect?” 

It seems to me that this involves a broad policy, and yet that 
the experience we have had might be a guide in that field. 
Frankly, there is much merit in the suggestion of an immigration 
board or an immigration commission with broad powers to 
regulate the flow of aliens. Such a commission also could make 
a deep study of the whole problem and make recommendations 
to Congress for intelligent revision of the law. There is a per¬ 
fect mine of information gathered by those who deal with the 
administration of the law, but it is an enormous task to gather 
all this information and put it into systematic shape. I think a 
commission or board should have powers analogous, for example, 
to the powers of the Imperial Council under the Canadian Law. 
However, I hestitate to suggest any particular program in that 
regard. The commission headed by Senator Dillingham made 
a wonderful report more than ten years ago. However, much 
of the information gathered by the Dillingham Commission has 
lost its value because of the great changes brought by the war. 
The problem shifted so rapidly that it is wholly a new one at 
this time. 

“Shall the Canadian system of selective immigration be given a 
trial in the United States?” 

It would appear that all of us here favor selective immigra¬ 
tion. I think practically everybody who has given the subject 
mature thought favors a system of selective immigration. It 
seems to me the details as to the system are unimportant. 
Frankly, I do not know how successful the Canadian system is, 
though I understand Canada is well pleased with it. The sys¬ 
tem perhaps would work here, but I am not prepared to say 
that we should use the same system being used in Canada. 

“Shall the contract labor law be modified , and if so , in what 
respects?” 

You will recall when the Chairman called on me yesterday 
morning I said, among other things, that I hoped the day is 
not far off when we will separate the purely economic question 
of wage earners in America from the question of our national 
destiny in connection with immigration. I have been struck 
by the fact that nearly every one in this conference who has dis- 

238 


cussed this question of immigration has discussed it as a phase 
of manpower for American industry. 

Selective immigration based upon our economic needs na¬ 
turally would be a modification of our present contract labor law. 
Such a system perforce would be based upon the needs of 
industry for men or women. Should an industry need a hundred 
additional men and send for them in a foreign country, they 
could not be admitted because of the contract labor law. Should 
we go on a selective basis based upon our industrial needs, that 
is just exactly what would have to be done. The employer who 
was in need of one hundred miners would make that fact known 
to some public authority, and the word would go to somewhere 
in some other country that we are in the market for one hundred 
miners of a certain type at a certain place in the United States 
in the plant of a certain employer. If that demand were supplied 
it would be a violation of existing law. The present contract 
labor law, however, provides that labor may be brought in under 
contract upon a showing that skilled labor of the type required 
cannot be found unemployed in the United States. During the 
past year the Department has had a perfect flood of such ap¬ 
plications. Quite a few orders were made permitting the im¬ 
portation of skilled labor under that provision of the law. 

Unquestionably the present contract labor law could be 
modified in some particulars and be improved thereby. I do 
not think anyone would care to so modify the contract labor 
law as to permit the repetition of the practices which originally 
induced its enactment. The law perhaps was made as drastic 
as it is because there was a time when transportation from 
European points was very cheap, and employers here went to 
Europe to get their supply of labor whenever there was a strike 
in their plant. Transportation lines once upon a time sold a 
ticket from Berlin to Chicago for ten dollars. It was much 
simpler for the employer whose force went on strike to bring 
substitute workers from Europe than to negotiate a settlement. 
It took less than thirty days to bring them over at small cost, 
and part of the agreement was that the laborer would have a 
certain sum deducted from his wages to reimburse the employer 
for the cost of bringing him in. Manifestly such practices could 
not last. They should not be indulged in to defeat the only 
means at times known to the wage earner to enforce what he 
regards as his rights, I believe we are rapidly approaching the 

239 


time when strikes and lockouts will be a thing of the past. 
Just how this is to be brought about I am not ready to say, but 
I have faith in the good sense and patriotism of our employers 
and wage earners who are leaders in their lines, that they will 
work out such a program in time. All disputes are settled some 
time. They can be avoided by settling the grievances without 
paralyzing industry. 

Modification of the contract labor law will be necessary to any 
system of selective immigration if selection is to be based upon 
economic needs. 

“Shall the literacy law be modified , and if so , in what respects?'* 

In my judgment the desirability of the literacy test is debat¬ 
able. I am informed that the purpose of the literacy test was 
to limit immigration from certain portions of Europe. Now 
that the country has gone onto a basis of limiting immigration 
on a different principle, that need seems to have passed away. 

In this connection I may be pardoned for suggesting that il¬ 
literacy itself is an interesting study in connection with the 
advanced countries of the world. The illiteracy of white native 
born Americans above the age of ten years is a fraction above 
3%. In some of the countries shown on the maps on this wall 
illiteracy is less than that, and in others it runs up to above 80%. 
In most of the countries of northern and western Europe the 
illiteracy is less than in the United States, and in most of the 
countries of southern and eastern Europe the illiteracy is much 
higher than in the United States. Occasionally you will find 
the country where the males are literate and the females almost 
wholly illiterate. That is particularly true in one of the coun¬ 
tries of western Europe. 

You can readily see that under this statement of fact the 
literacy test had a tendency to retard immigration from southern 
and eastern Europe and had practically no effect on immigra¬ 
tion from northern and western Europe. The truth is that some 
of the finest brains in Europe have never had a chance to learn 
to read. Some of the men and women of bright intellects and 
clean morals are illiterate. It is also true that the class of aliens 
coming to us usually designated as enemies of government are 
well educated. I am told, and my study tends to sustain what 
I am told, namely, that anarchy is recruited almost exclusively 
from the student and college graduate classes of the Old World. 

240 


Those of you who feel that immigration should be closely linked 
with the economic problem of manpower might well remember 
that many of the finest specimens of physical manhood and 
womanhood, with clear brains, are unable to read, and that those 
least capable of doing manual labor are often the only ones who 
have an opportunity to devote time to learning how to read. 
Many aliens unable to read are really educated craftsmen, edu¬ 
cated farmers, educated workmen, in the sense of knowing how 
to do a useful thing well, with hearts and souls really educated 
in that they are devoted to religion and clean thinking; yet they 
are unable to read. 

“Shall a system of registration of alien immigrants be put into 
effect , and if so , vchat form shall it take?” 

Well, we have had something on that subject here this after¬ 
noon. The registration of the alien is a program rather than 
something we now have. However, someone here referred to 
the fact that the Secretary of Labor sponsors that program, and 
for that reason I think it might be proper for me to say what is 
in my mind and based on close association with what I under¬ 
stand is in the mind of the Secretary of Labor in that connection. 
Time will not permit going into it in detail. I shall simply try 
to touch the high spots. I discussed this subject in greater 
detail when I was here a month ago. 

First of all I want to go on record as resenting with all the 
power there is in me the suggestion and imputation carried in 
the language of the last previous speaker who discussed this 
subject. He drew a picture of corrupt immigration officials 
preying upon the alien should registration be provided for. I 
am here to say, as one who has had direct charge of personnel 
in the Department of Labor for the last two and one-half years, 
that the immigration force is made up of as clean a lot of men 
and women as any to be found in America. The percentage of 
those who go wrong is smaller in our Immigration Service than 
in the average of all people in America. The fact is I have been 
perfectly astounded at the high tone of the service in view of all 
the circumstances. These men and women in the Immigration 
Service are as truly soldieis of the nation as are the men who 
carry guns and sabres. All of these people in the Immigration 
Service expose their health and lives to jeopardy nearly every 
day. They are called upon to deal with all sorts of people, in- 

241 


eluding many who carry the germs of loathsome contagious 
diseases, who are moral lepers as well as physical lepers, and 
many of them are highly dangerous to life. These devoted 
servants of the Government furnish an efficient service and are 
always on the job at every hour of the day and night in the 
interests of our common country. The alien has not better 
friends than the employees of the Government, and I will not 
willingly stand by and have the broad assertion made that 
the alien is ever in danger of being frisked or railroaded by 
them. 

Now that we are on the subject, I am inclined to tell you where 
the real danger to the alien lies. Our experience teaches us that 
the greatest danger to the alien is the smart man and woman of 
his own race who have come before him and who are making a 
living under the guise of being friends and well-wishers of their 
fellow countrymen. Do not misunderstand me. I am not 
throwing out any blanket accusations. What I mean is that the 
rats and harpies who defraud and cheat and maltreat the alien 
are not government officers, nor are they, as a rule, American 
citizens of the older stripe. Thank God there are not many 
with the mendacity and cruelty to do these people wrong. But 
the few individuals who are doing just that are, almost without 
exception, representatives of the alien’s own race who have been 
here a few years. Next in rank in that category are the scav¬ 
engers of the greatest profession on earth, the law. The type 
is to be found on the outskirts of every profession. The am¬ 
bulance-chasing type of lawyer joins hands with the con¬ 
scienceless representative of the alien’s race in doing him dirt. 
These poor creatures are deceived and lied to and threatened 
and cajoled. Many who have been lawfully admitted do not 
know it and have tribute levied upon them year after year by 
these ghouls under the threat of deportation unless they do 
their will. No, friends, it is not the immigrant inspector or the 
federal officer the alien need fear. It is his alleged friends, these 
wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are few, but they are effective 
and fast workers. There are hundreds of thousands of loyal souls 
who render a real service to their countrymen when they arrive. 
There are a great many splendid upstanding lawyers who render 
them great service and almost without charge. I wish there were 
some way of getting at the gray wolves who constitute the ex¬ 
ception. Someone called my attention recently to the fact that 


the Savior out of seventy disciples chose twelve as apostles, and 
one of these betrayed him, while another denied him. 

I wish I might be able to bring home to you the situation with 
reference to these men and women in the Immigration Service. 
The work at a great port like Ellis Island carries not so many 
dangers, but think of the army of them along the land borders 
and along the water borders where the bootlegging of aliens, 
liquors and narcotics is at its height. If the total personnel on 
our Mexican border were planted equally distant apart between 
the Gulf of Mexico and my own dear home town, San Diego, 
California, there would be a hundred miles between any two of 
them. Climatic conditions in some of these places make life 
almost impossible. These devoted souls take turns at these desert 
stations in order to render the Government a needed service. 
The Imperial Valley, where California and the Lower California 
Peninsula of Mexico meet, is a desert country which lies 250 feet 
below sea level. It takes a real soldier to stay there during a 
summer. They live in lonely spots and rarely see a human being 
except some alien who is trying to come into the country through 
the backdoor or some law breaker who is endeavoring to shake 
off his pursuers. These gentry are desperate and many of our 
boys have given up their lives because of that. I say: “All 
hail to the employees of the Immigration Service. You are 
faithful and loyal servants of a government which believes in 
you and relies upon you for its protection in an important field.” 

No, friends, the enrollment of the alien is not intended to 
bedevil the alien but rather to be helpful to him if he is honest. 
Surely no one who knows the Secretary of Labor could possibly 
believe that he had any ulterior motive or any desire to prey 
upon the poor alien in connection with his program for enroll¬ 
ment. He is of alien birth himself. Forty-three years ago he 
stood down here in Castle Garden, a little curly-headed, black- 
eyed lad from Wales. With one little hand he was hanging onto 
the skirt of his mother, with the other he was holding the hand 
of his little sister, and she in turn the hand of another brother, 
and so on down the line. The father had come a few years 
before, and then came the mother and the kids. This boy ex¬ 
perienced all the hardships and trials and difficulties that come 
to the homes of poverty and of toil. He became a factor in 
industry when but a mere child at an age when other children 
were in school. He has fought his way from an humble cottage 

243 


in a foreign land through a wage earner’s lot, through hardship and 
difficulty and suffering and toil, to a place where he finally be¬ 
came an employer of labor, and thence on forward, upward, 
devoting much time and energy to the effort to be of assistance 
to his fellow men, to alleviate distress, to serve dependent 
childhood. And then still on and on as a leader in a great 
fraternal movement and the pioneer in a new kind of altruistic 
service for dependent children, onward into a seat as a Cabinet 
Minister in the greatest government on earth. 

No, the Secretary of Labor is not evil minded in his dealing 
with the alien and is not planning to oppress him. He thor¬ 
oughly understands the alien’s problem. He has lived the part 
and he has experienced all things that an alien may experience. 
His heart and soul is in this plan of enrollment of the alien so 
that we may render a service to those who come here with the 
hope and the desire to be permitted to labor and toil and achieve 
a broader and a richer life than the country of their birth can 
afford them. America has done much for the Secretary of 
Labor and those dear to him, and I have often heard him say that 
the only regret he had, the only feeling he had that America 
did not do all that it might have done for him and his, was that 
America did not enroll his father when he first came and help 
him into bigger and better things thereby. The Secretary’s 
father was below thirty when he came, a good workman, but 
unable to read. The Secretary has often said that, had the laws 
then provided for enrollment, his father would have learned to 
read and thus to take a broader and more intelligent part in 
the affairs of his government, to his own greater happiness. It 
is not to be expected that the average hard working man who 
toils many hours each day in an effort to support a large family 
will voluntarily give up his evenings to additional efforts looking 
towards learning how to read. The Secretary feels a deep regret 
now that the days hang heavily upon his father’s declining 
years because of his inability to read. 

The very thought of the plan for the enrollment of the alien 
sprouted in the heart and brain of the Secretary of Labor as 
he contemplated the declining years of his own dear Dad, as 
well as the lost opportunities that have narrowed the lives of 
the men who were young men when his father came. He there¬ 
fore bethought himself of this plan as the only feasible way by 
which our great government may, without embarrassment to 

244 


the alien, take him gently by the hand and lead him into the 
proper channels that will develop the best that is within him 
naturally, simply and effectively. Innumerable examples have 
come to my own personal attention of American citizens by 
birth, who were born from immigrant parents in congested sec¬ 
tions of cities or in scattered portions of the country where their 
only associates were those speaking a language other than 
English. It is not right that these young American citizens 
shall grow up with only a foreign language, learning largely the 
philosophy only of the country from which their parents came. 
It is the right of every child and of every alien who comes to 
stay with us permanently to be given a fair chance for the rudi¬ 
ments of an American education, including simple courses in 
the philosophy of our American government and American in¬ 
stitutions. 

It is not fair to pick out some little detail in the draft of a 
proposed law providing for enrollment which was introduced 
in Congress a year ago, and make that the butt of assaults and 
attacks. No one has yet worked out all the details of a plan. 
Anything in the draft of last year that might reasonably be ob¬ 
jected to can readily be changed. 

The gentleman who discussed enrollment this morning said 
that it is proposed that if one of the aliens accidently forgets to 
enroll, he is to be grabbed and deported as we did Chinese when 
the Chinese enrollment act of 1893 was passed. Permit me to 
say that I was connected with the United States Attorney’s 
office at Milwaukee for ten years, both as an assistant and as 
head of the office, beginning soon after the Chinese enrollment 
law was enacted. I had experience with many of these cases. 
The Chinese enrollment statute was one providing for enrollment 
for a period of six months and no more. Any Chinese laborer 
who had not enrolled during that time could not subsequently 
enroll. However, the law made provision that anyone who 
could prove that he was lawfully domiciled in the United States 
at the time the enrollment period was on and was unable to en¬ 
roll or because of explained circumstances did not know about 
the law, was nevertheless permitted to remain in the United 
States. However, there is nothing even in the draft bill of last year 
which approaches in any way the drastic thing suggested. There 
must be some remedy in extreme cases. The draft provided 
that any alien who refused to be enrolled and whose refusal 

245 


continued for a certain number of years, might be deported. 
I see nothing whatever improper in that. 

Let it be understood that the first and foremost purpose of 
the enrollment plan is to serve the alien. The principal purpose 
is to provide the machinery under which the alien may readily 
get in touch with American forces that will help him to learn 
the American language, to read and to write in the English 
language, and to learn American institutions and how to take 
an intelligent part therein. Anyone who attempts to deny that 
there is a great need for such service has not had the opportunity 
to know the truth, or wilfully refuses to see it, like the ostrich 
who thinks he hides himself from view by sticking his head into 
the sand. We hope not only to help the alien himself but also 
the boys and girls of the second and third generation born in 
sections of our country where there is no opportunity to lead 
the life that is the proper heritage of every American. The truth 
is there are many reproductions of foreign countries in our 
American cities. 

No one has any patent on any definite plan for the enrollment 
of the alien. Everybody who is honestly interested in the wel¬ 
fare of the alien is anxious for suggestions in the matter of plans. 
That the principle is conect there can be no question. 

And then there is the second factor in this plan, and that is a 
proper method for the discovery of those who are here unlaw¬ 
fully, who come in violation of our laws, who come here for evil 
purposes, who came lawfully but by improper conduct have lost 
their right to remain here. 

If you will look at the statistics of rejections at our ports, 
which are annually compiled you will find that, in spite of all laws 
and of all efforts to keep them away, hundreds upon hundreds 
of aliens are rejected every year because they are feebleminded 
or insane or idiots, because they are afflicted with loathsome 
contagious diseases of all sorts and types, because their blood 
is heavily loaded with inherited syphilis which has been passed 
down from generation to generation; that thousands are re¬ 
jected because it is discovered on arrival that they have been 
convicted of crimes or have served time in penitentiaries or have 
otherwise been eliminated from their own countries because 
unfit to live there. There are some twenty-five types of dis¬ 
qualifications under which aliens are rejected at our ports, 
ranging all the way from illiteracy to disease. These rejected 

?46 


aliens are usually returned to the country from which they 
came or at least to the port on the other side at which they 
embarked. 

In addition to the diseased and unfit who seek to enter at our 
ports, there are thousands upon thousands, knowing that they 
are inadmissible, who make no effort to enter at our ports. Then 
there are thousands upon thousands, knowing that we limit 
immigration and that we seek as nearly as possible to receive 
only those who are normal physically, mentally and morally, 
and knowing themselves disqualified, make no effort to come 
through out regular ports. However, this army of rejects and 
this army of unfit, who know that they would be rejected if they 
came, never cease in their efforts to come. Knowing that the 
front door is closed to them, they seek the back door. Their 
first effort is to get into foreign contiguous territory of North 
America or upon the islands adjacent thereto. And then by 
means of stealth and cunning and corruption and the employ¬ 
ment of bootleggers they seek entry everywhere. They come 
by airplane, by ship, by automobile, on foot. Thousands upon 
thousands of them enter the country every year. It is almost 
impossible to locate these people once they get into our great 
cities; and there they are in defiance of our law, spreading disease 
and pestilence and sedition and anarchy and crime. Many men 
have devoted years of study to the problem of how to locate 
these and deport them. All agree that the annual enrollment 
of the alien is the only possible method. 

The draft of the enrollment measure of two years ago was a 
measure dealing with naturalization, of which enrollment was a 
part. The machinery for its enforcement from the federal side 
was almost entirely the present constituted naturalization force. 
It also provided for this work being done by local officers of 
town, city, county and state. The essentials of an enrollment 
plan can be carried out without appointing a single additional 
federal officer. The whole plan is merely a marshaling of present 
official forces to do this work in connection with their official 
duties they now perform. Naturally the service can be more 
effective by the appointment of a few special men and women 
who are to lead in this work. It is necessary, for example, in 
some places, for the government to organize its own American¬ 
ization schools, but this is only in rare instances. 

You of course understand that the Bureau of Naturalization 

W 


is one of the Bureaus of the Department of Labor. We have 
organized in that Bureau a very effective Americanization force. 
It is wholly a matter of cooperation with local educational forces 
in the preparation of aliens for citizenship. We strongly believe 
in the Department of Labor that an alien should first be made 
an American and then be naturalized. The act of naturaliza¬ 
tion is merely a legal ceremony and it should not be gone through 
with until the alien is able to know what it is all about and what 
it all means. One of the strong arguments for enrollment is 
simply to bring about just this. 

The astounding fact is that of 14,000,000 people of foreign 
birth in America only about one-half are naturalized. Perhaps 
50% of those who are still alien are so because they have not 
learned our language, nor have they learned anything about our 
institutions, and therefore they are unable to pass the tests. 
I venture to say that the other half represents those who are 
here unlawfully or who, having come lawfully, have committed 
some offense that lays them subject to deportation; or they are 
purely and simply enemies of government who are here planning 
more deviltry and organizing to overthrow this and all other 
governments. I see no reason why good Americans should shed 
any tears over what might happen to this gentry as a result of 
enrollment. I know of no harm that can come to any honest, 
decent alien, who has come for proper purposes, who has led a 
proper life, and who has come to share with us the burdens as 
well as the blessings of this country. 

It is idle to say that the fact of enrollment carries with it any 
reproach or any danger. During the war we enrolled four mil¬ 
lion American boys in the draft. Not one of them suffered a 
wrong because of this enrollment, unless he was a slacker or a 
deserter or otherwise wrong. We enroll every voter in America 
before we permit him to vote. We require him to tell many 
things about himself under the varying enrollment laws of 
various states. No harm comes to the voter because of this 
enrollment, unless it be that he endeavors to vote or does vote 
where he has no right to vote or votes oftener than once at a 
given election. We enroll millions of Americans and of aliens 
every year for the purpose of taxation. Millions of us pay in¬ 
come taxes, and millions of others of us are required to make 
income tax returns to ascertain whether or not we are exempt 
from taxation, No harm has yet come to any one enrolled 

248 


under the income tax laws of state and nation, unless it was that 
he swore falsely about his income or declined to pay his tax. 

The truth is, friends, that every one under the flag above the 
age of ten is enrolled anywhere from one to a dozen times in 
connection with various operations of our civilization. All these 
rolls I have mentioned are public property. They ar.e all in 
the hands of the Government or subject to the control of the 
Government. If this Government is in the business of bedeviling 
aliens or citizens, it need not wait for the enrollment of aliens 
for a fair opportunity. Why, bless your hearts, who among us 
all would want to do harm to any alien who has come to our 
shore ? We hope that every one of them is an honest person 
who has come to us honestly, with honest intentions, and is 
leading an honest life. If the facts are otherwise, we are not 
seeking to punish him or to do him a wrong. We simply say: 
“This land is not for such as you. You have violated our laws 
in coming here and therefore you must leave.” 

The speaker this morning referred to enrollment as Czarism 
and the practice of autocratic governments. He is utterly 
wrong. The trouble with enrollment is not the fact of enroll¬ 
ment, but the spirit of the government behind that enrollment. 
The government that has no love for its citizenry or for its guests 
will do them wrong whether they are enrolled or not. 

Who is the American Government ? It is not some strange 
unseen power, some indescribable something somewhere. It 
is just the plain people of America. It is you and I. This is 
a government by majorities. The spirit of the Government will 
always be and always has been merely the spirit of the majority. 
How long, think you, would a public officer be tolerated in 
office if he practiced the outrages painted by those who oppose 
this plan of enrollment ? Why, he certainly would not last any 
longer than the next plebiscite when the American voters would 
make short shift of him. 

The speaker this morning said that President Warren G. 
Harding was beguiled into indorsing this plan, and that Presi¬ 
dent Coolidge likewise had permitted himself inadvertently to 
have the wool pulled over his eyes, and in a moment while under 
the hypnotic spell of the Secretary of Labor or someone else 
gave his indorsement to the plan. What arrant nonsense! 
Those of us who knew the lovable character and type of Warren 
G. Harding probably could understand that some designing 

249 


shark shedding crocodile tears might have induced that saintly 
man to take a course his better judgment would have opposed. 
I submit to you, however, that by common consent Calvin 
Coolidge is not the type of man to be carried so far by the rush 
act. He gave this subject the same deep, careful and sympa¬ 
thetic thought and study that he gave to every other recom¬ 
mendation in his message. 

I apologize for taking up so much time on this subject. I 
have only touched the merest outline of the plan. I hope at 
some other time to have the opportunity of discussing it with 
you fully. 

“Should a limited educational test be required?” 

It seems to me I have covered that in connection with another 
subject. It is, after all, a matter of policy. If we wish, we have 
the right to say that we will receive no immigrant from any 
country in which the illiteracy is greater than in ours. We would 
be wholly within our rights were we to require, as one of the con¬ 
ditions of entry of an alien, any type of educational standard we 
deemed proper. 

“Shall alien immigration be prohibited for a limited period from 
settling in large cities?” 

There is a much mooted question. Many of our good folks 
think that if the alien were to be planted in small communities 
or on farms it would be better for him and us than if he went 
to the cities. I am not at all certain about that. As before sug¬ 
gested, nearly all aliens who come now are destined to some 
member of their family, some relative or some friend. They 
must go and join their friends or be unhappy. Again, the aver¬ 
age alien immigrant knows nothing of American agriculture or 
American business methods or of American operations generally. 
Most of them get their first rudimentary training from their 
relatives and friends to whom they go. I have often thought 
that it would be much more practical for us to go into the so- 
called alien sections of our cities and endeavor to induce those 
who have been there for several years to move forward to the 
country and the smaller cities rather than to seek to have the 
newcomer go there. These immigrants really need the advice 
and cooperation and patience of friendly relatives to help them 
get a fair start* The question is as long as it is broad, and the 

250 


more I study it the less I am certain that what is actually now 
taking place is bad for both of us. 

“Should certain blood and intelligent tests be applied?” 

Substantially that is now being done. There is no more defi¬ 
nite way of knowing the health of an individual than by a blood 
test. Under present practices these tests are applied whenever 
the examining physician is in doubt. Ordinarily he can satisfy 
himself from a brief examination as to whether or not the in¬ 
dividual needs more careful and thorough examination. We 
have had some outstanding illustrations of this. I have in 
mind a case in which several physicians made many tests on 
an alien who didn’t just look right to them, although they 
couldn’t tell why. It was not until a blood test was finally made 
that they discovered that he was afflicted with leprosy. The 
disease was found on his toes finally. 

The mental test is always applied. It is involved in every 
examination that is made. The great bulk of aliens pass these 
tests readily. When the examiners are in doubt, special mental 
tests are applied. The requirement to read is naturally some¬ 
what of a mental test. The alien not only is required to read, 
but, as the courts have said, must read understandingly. In 
that connection I must say that after all sorts of efforts to know 
what to use as a standard test, it was decided to use certain 
passages from the Bible. Recently the point was made with 
me that one hundred and forty-two Christian creeds have been 
developed in the last two thousand years based upon varying 
interpretations by students of theology. It was suggested that 
since theologians cannot agree upon the meaning of the language 
of the Bible, how is it to be expected that every alien will in¬ 
terpret these passages in accordance with the interpretation 
given it by an American inspector ? The truth of the matter is 
that these inspectors are real practical people and they can 
readily ascertain and rarely make mistakes on the point of 
whether or not an alien understands what he reads. 

This, my friends, covers the list of questions for this morn¬ 
ing’s session. There are some on the program for this afternoon 
which are very interesting. Among them is this one: “Shall 
other special legislation be enacted?” 

Undoubtedly much other legislation must be enacted. I 
have none in mind right now. This whole question of regulating 

251 


immigration is a living, growing, developing question. The 
laws of today are the result of growth and development based 
upon the experience of the past. It must be a constantly chang¬ 
ing problem with constantly changing legislation. 

To my mind there is no more important question to be con¬ 
sidered by us here in America than this movement of peoples 
around the world and its effect upon us. Never before in our 
history have we given it so much careful consideration and 
never before in our history has it meant so much to our na¬ 
tional destiny. Prior to May, 1921, we had always stood for a 
wide open policy. For three centuries we have thought here in 
America only of what is best for the men, women and children 
of the rest of the world. Our hearts have gone out to them and 
their problems and their suffering, and we have always said: 
“Welcome, everybody, to America ! ” The quota law of May 
19, 1921, marks a definite turn in our policy and attitude. We 
suddenly have decided that our immigration policy is no longer 
to be one of welcome to all the world but rather a policy of what 
is best for America. As a result more people in America are 
giving the subject careful thought and more interest has been 
aroused in the subject than ever before. Every one of us here 
has contributed something valuable to the sum total of the 
knowledge on the subject. I know that I have learned a great 
deal that will be helpful to me. 

Again I want to express my appreciation of the work of Mr. 
Alexander and the National Industrial Conference Board in 
this field. It is a wonderful work that is being done to call this 
conference, to outline a program of the problem, to present im¬ 
portant facts in graphic form, to present information not readily 
obtainable. All this constitutes a distinct contribution for the 
welfare of our common country. I hope some time we in public 
office dealing with this subject may secure some of these won¬ 
derful charts and diagrams and compilations of the National 
Industrial Conference Board. I hope these proceedings Will 
be reproduced in the form of a printed report so that there may 
be a permanent record of all the suggestions here made. 

May I also be permitted to say that a study on the subject 
of immigration was published by the National Industrial Con¬ 
ference Board last May, which in my judgment stands un¬ 
equaled in its value and in the information there presented. 
In this connection I also desire to invite your attention to a 

252 


study made by the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. In 
that study the proposition is laid down that if there had not 
been a single immigrant received in the United States in a 
century the population of the United States would nevertheless 
be at least what it is today, to wit, 110,000,000. This is based 
on the theory that whenever immigration was light, the birth 
rate in America increased, and that whenever immigration was 
heavy, the birth rate declined. It is claimed in that study that 
the rate of increase of population in a century has been a steady 
quantity unaffected by the rise or fall of the wave of immigra¬ 
tion. I recommend a careful reading of that study. I believe 
if you will address the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, 
California, and ask for a copy it will be furnished. 

I thank you for the courtesies extended to me here and for 
this opportunity to discuss with my fellow citizens a question 
which means so much to us all. 


253 


APPENDIX 


Miscellaneous Views on Aspects of the Immigration 

Problem Discussed at the Immigration Conference 

The following are extracts from letters or statements received by 
the National Industrial Conference Board from individuals and 
representatives of organizations who did not attend or speak at the 
Immigration Conference , but who, in response to the Conference 
Board's invitation , expressed their attitude on the questions under 
discussion. 

Stephen P. Duggan, Director, Institute of International 
Education, New York. 

“One of the most unfortunate characteristics of the present 
immigration law is the treatment that has been given out under 
it to foreign students coming to our universities for education 
here. They are not immigrants; they do not intend to settle 
here; they come for one or a very few years simply for the pur¬ 
pose of study and then intend to go home. Nevertheless they 
are, under the present law, treated exactly as are any other im¬ 
migrants and are included in the national quota. Extreme 
offense has been given many European and other countries of 
the world by the fact that some students who have been ad¬ 
mitted by correspondence to our great universities upon arrival 
at Ellis Island have been detained and in some cases deported 
because their national quota had been filled. I think, therefore, 
one of the topics that ought to be considered in the program 
of discussion at the National Immigration Conference should 
be the status of foreign students.” 

Edward A. Simmons , President , American Marine Association. 

“We call your attention to (the resolution) passed by the 
American Marine Congress on November 8, 1923, which reads 
as follows: 

“Resolved, that we urge the adoption of a national policy 
reserving the transportation of not less than one-half of the 
total number of immigrants admitted to the United States 
in any fiscal year to vessels registered or enrolled and licensed 
under the laws of the United States.” 

254 


Carl Osborne, Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Emigration, 
Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Cleveland, Ohio. 

“The committee on immigration and emigration of the Cleve¬ 
land Chamber of Commerce advocates the regulation of immi¬ 
gration within maximum limits fixed by Congress through an 
immigration commission, and further recommends that the com¬ 
mission should be guided by these same factors which you have 
included in Question IV in determining the quotas for admission. 

“While the proposal for a commission has not been mentioned 
a great deal in current discussion of the immigration problems, 
our committee believes that our immigration policy can be 
put on a more permanent and scientific basis than if we make 
some modifications of our present unscientific percentage law. 
The committee believes that the immigration problem is similar 
to the problem of regulating interstate commerce and should, 
therefoie, have continuous expert treatment.” 

R . J. Caldwell, New York City. 

“I was a member of the National Republican Club’s Immigra¬ 
tion Committee in the last presidential campaign and have given 
this subject some study while on diplomatic missions abroad 
for this government. 

“A feature of this which should command attention is that 
the Bureau of Immigration is located in the Department of 
Labor, the secretary of which is invariably a labor man. More¬ 
over, Mr. Gomper’s son is a permanent attache of the Depart¬ 
ment of Labor, regardless of whether the Republican or Demo¬ 
cratic party is in power, and he scrutinizes everything that 
transpires in that department. The American Federation of 
Labor should not be both judge and jury on so important an 
economic subject affecting the welfare of the entire country, 
wherefore it is obvious this bureau should be relocated — not, 
I think, in the Department of State, for that department is 
pervaded by too much of a foreign atmosphere; nor in the De¬ 
partment of Commerce, for that department I think is generally 
accepted as representing the interests of capital, as the Depart¬ 
ment of Labor does of labor. It would seem to me the Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior is the logical place to lodge the Bureau of 
Immigration. 

“Again, for the purpose of admission of any member of a 
family into this country it should first be established that a vise 

255 


of the United States Government is based on honor and a sense 
of obligation to second and third class passengers as well as to 
first class passengers, which is (not) the case now. When anyone 
abroad sells out all his belongings and perhaps at a considerable 
sacrifice, assuming that, having secured a United States vise, he 
is safe in taking such a radical step, he should not be without 
protection by this government, whose vise he accepts in good 
faith; but the entire question of his admission should be deter¬ 
mined when his vise is issued abroad and no question should 
arise upon his arrival here in respect to admission. 

“Moreover, the determination of the country of origin under 
which he or any of the members of his family are classified should 
be governed by the interest of the immigrant and his or her 
family. It has been proposed that in the forthcoming new law, 
to avoid separation of families, all the members shall take the 
nationality of the father, but it is not possible to foresee what 
complications may arise in so intricate a question. Therefore 
the new law should provide that all members of the family come 
into the quota of the father or the mother or the. members 
themselves, according to country of birth, whichever best serves 
the welfare of the family. Anything else is inhumane and un¬ 
worthy of this great nation. 

“The present custom requires that the applicant shall apply 
in person to the American consul located in his country. I 
made a careful investigation of the result of this in Europe this 
year and was appalled at the tragedy which this seemingly 
simple and just clause entails. 

“I will take Austria as an unusual case, because if there are 
worse ones I do not know of them, but certainly that of Austria 
is bad enough. We have one consul in all Austria and he is lo¬ 
cated in Vienna. From all parts of the country these poor people, 
laboring under the trying circumstances of the badly depleted 
currency have to travel to Vienna and await the pleasure of the 
consul, sometimes being obliged to return to their homes and 
make a second trip later if the quota for Austria has been ex¬ 
hausted so far ahead as the consul sees fit to issue vises, and he 
commonly does not issue them more than sixty days in advance. 
Yet the intending immigrant has no means of knowing this until 
he arrives in Vienna and learns of his sad predicament. It is a 
matter of consequence to people in such financial circumstances 
to have to take a journey to Vienna, and doubly so when obliged 

256 


to remain there for some time, for the cost of living in Vienna 
is much higher than in the provinces. Moreover, in order to 
be absent from his work for this length of time he frequently 
loses his job, and in a country where there is so much unemploy¬ 
ment as there is in Europe, this in itself is a tragedy. 

“This could be obviated by having all applications made by 
mail to the consul and having traveling inspectors go out from 
the consulate on regular rounds and notify all applicants before 
undertaking such a trip, advising them where they can meet 
the consular agent at a given place and time reasonably near 
the applicant’s home address. We have not given thought 
enough to this subject so involved with human tragedy. We 
have been very careless in making rules in Washington, the 
effect of which spreads through every country, affecting hundreds 
of thousands of people and visiting unnecessary and terrible 
hardships upon them. 

“Aside from the humanitarian aspect of this tragic situation, 
this is not the way for this government to take the first step 
towards making good friends of the strangers coming to us. 
If we show so little concern for their welfare, is it reasonable to 
expect that they will be impressed with any great obligation 
to be grateful towards us ?” 

Thomas S. Luck, Assistant Professor , Department of Economics and 
Sociology , Indiana University. 

“My sense of patriotism compels me to write to you regarding 
the immigration problem. Circumstances alter cases and it is 
high time that steps be taken to keep America safe for Ameri¬ 
cans. 

“There is no labor shortage in this country if our present labor 
was properly allocated and efficiently used. Under-employment 
exists at all times for around a million wage earners. We need 
to use more labor-saving machinery and to punish inefficient 
employers who bring unemployment to their workers by putting 
pleasure before business for themselves. They cannot be fired 
by the willing-to-work employees, unfortunately. 

“We have expensive war vessels policing the seas and strong 
forts on shore to guard our country from armed invasion, but 
the Conquerors of America are sailing unmolested past all these. 
They are conquering the country our pioneer forefathers fought 
for, not with their cannon but with their cradles. As a teacher 

257 


of sociology and eugenics, statistics show that this country in a 
century will be ruled by the posterity of the immigrants. Give 
us more control of immigration and there will be less need for 
birth control in this country. 

“Open the gates of Ellis Island to the educated classes of 
Europe and allow all the college graduates to come who want to, 
instead of the sloughing off of European society. We import 
artists and pay them deference and good salaries, but few of 
the people of personal worth and social position care to come to 
America. We need have no concern about being overrun by 
this class. 

“Ten per cent of the shortsighted employing class of the 
South brought cheap slave labor to this country for which society 
paid dear and all the people suffered for the sins of the few. The 
same policy is being followed today by about 10% of the great 
employing captains of industry, and posterity will pay dear for 
their folly. In a democracy the majority rule and the rising 
generation of immigrant posterity will soon form that majority. 

“The tariff should protect wages as much as profits, but un¬ 
fortunately, the lion’s share of the profits go to a very small 
per cent of our population. Let in foreign goods and competition 
will spur American industry on to as great efficiency as any 
other country, and labor will cease soldiering on the job. 

“I find public sentiment strong for stopping the polluting 
streams of immigration. The Ku Klux Klan would vanish if 
proper restrictions were placed upon immigration. Personally, 
I hope it will grow until its power is great enough to make itself 
felt by those insensible to their posterity’s welfare. Too many 
men give too much thought to their pocketbooks and too little 
to their posterity. 

“My ancestors have fought in every war this country ever 
had and I know from first-hand knowledge what it feels like to 
be a soldier, so that I feel I have a right to protest against the 
present cowardly surrender of the land of our forefathers to the 
unarmed hosts who are conquering this country slowly but 
surely. Our stewardship of the heritage they left us certainly 
has not been one to be proud of in regard to immigration. 

“This country’s population will grow rapidly enough by 
natural increase. Gresham’s law applies to blood as truly as 
to money. Inferior stock will run out the good, for in order to 
retain their leadership the better will resort to birth control to 

258 


the point of extinction. It concerns some men more to see a 
fine old shade tree in their yard dying than the same does for 
their family tree. Do they really care who has Old Glory in 
keeping when they leave this world behind ? 

“Our goods should not only be made in America but made by 
Americans. I trust your honored body will exert its influence 
in behalf of their country’s enduring welfare and I am confident 
you will not fail us who are not so fortunately situated.” 

North American Civic League of Immigrants , Boston , Mass. 

“For fifteen years the League has rendered helpful service to 
foreigners in America, and has been in receipt of reports from 
its paid foreign-speaking agents—now numbering from forty to 
fifty. 

“It has exercised a gracious influence in scores of so-called 
industrial wars, and has secured the confidence of large bodies 
of foreign-speaking people who have acquainted it with their 
problems. 

“With such a record the League is informed in regard to the 
serious consequences following slovenly immigration laws, and 
is in a position to draw conclusions which should be of value to 
those who are considering comprehensive immigration legis¬ 
lation. 

“Certain of its conclusions may be briefly summarized as 
follows: 

“1. Manufacturers who encourage the importation of im¬ 
migrants without suitable inspection and provision for their 
regulation, not only do the nation a grievous injury, but are 
endangering their own prosperity. Profits cannot continue 
without political stability. 

“A country that is filled with revolutionaries and taxed to 
the limit for the support of degenerate aliens, is in a condition 
which the business man as well as the patriot must regard as 
serious. 

“2. Restriction is essential, but unscientific restriction, 
such as percentage laws, is bound to produce evasion of law, 
international difficulties, and economic complications. 

“It is highly probable that the nation from time to time 
will have need of outside labor. At such times a national 
policy that shuts the gates of our ports may readily cause the 
closing down of many manufacturing plants and affect not 
only employers but skilled labor. 

“For this reason immigration laws should be so framed as 
to make it possible for the American people to receive the alien 
labor which they need, but in full recognition of the fact that 

259 


the nation cannot afford to take in any but the physically 
healthful and the mentally right-minded nor to permit immi¬ 
grants or alien labor to drift about the country without suit¬ 
able supervision. 

“Proper inspection supplemented by suitable regulation 
would do much to bring about conditions which restrictionists 
desire. 

“3. In general, it is time for the American people to recog¬ 
nize the difference between the alien who intends to settle 
in the country, the alien traveler and the alien workman who 
comes into the country for a job. 

“It is also time for them to rid themselves of the uncon¬ 
scionable error that the naturalization of unfit material helps 
to solve their problems. 

“The latter has been the most dangerous political heresy 
that has ever been popular with our people. If pushed to the 
degree that the present Commissioner General and certain 
subordinates of government departments desire, this mis¬ 
chievous movement will put both capital and honorable labor 
at the mercy of those who are enemies to both. It offers the 
proletariat the means of securing the wealth of the country 
without the use of force.” 

Joseph Burger , President , United Restaurant Owners' Association , Inc.y 

New York. 

“A quota restriction is an arbitrary and artificial method of 
,selecting immigrants. Its application. . . .excludes social, men¬ 
tal, moral and physical able-bodied white persons from entering 
the United States. 

“This result is contrary to the spirit which actuated and per¬ 
meated the development of the United States into its present 
healthy condition. 

“You will kindly note this organization as opposed to such 
restriction.” 

George Wolfe , Secretary, Winding Gulf Operators Association , Beckley , 

W. Va. 

“Our association has subscribed to resolutions passed at the 
26 th Annual Convention of the American Mining Congress held 
in Milwaukee, Wis., last September, reading as follows: 

“Whereas, There is insufficient labor available in this 
country to maintain mining and other essential industries at 
their necessary scale of operations; and 
“Whereas, The number of immigrants admitted to this 
country is limited by law; and 

“Whereas, Under the existing conditions such immigrants 
as are admitted are largely undesirable in that they have no 
intent to perform any constructive service and in fact do not 
contribute any useful effort; therefore, be it 

260 


“Resolved, That we hereby place this organization on 
record as in favor of selective immigration, operative prior to 
embarkation or such other procedure, if a better be proposed, 
as will tend to increase the proportion of workers among 
aliens admitted to the United States, to the end that mining 
and other industries may have a better labor supply than is 
now available or will probably be available unless specific 
efforts be made to increase the supply of workers from 
abroad.” 

A. S. Coody, Secretary State Tax Commission, Jackson, Miss. 

“Without answering your questions seriatim I wish to say 
that I am in favor of repealing the present immigration law and 
enacting in its stead a law absolutely prohibiting any person 
coming to this country, except as a visitor or student, who is 
not a white Caucasian. They should be required to obtain 
passport signed by the American Consul abroad before they are 
permitted to take passage for this country. 

“I think this would simplify the law and obviate any need for 
a literacy test or any other test other than a certificate of good 
health. I think these views are entertained by a vast majority 
of the white people of Mississippi.” 

Engineering Association of Nashville, Tenn. 

“Whereas, The shortage of manual labor in this country threatens 
to check industrial progress, and 

“Whereas, The present immigration law has closed the door on our 
former source of supply, and 

“Whereas, This condition must be overcome by enticing from their 
present employment, clerks, waiters, barbers, stenographers, elevator 
operators and other non-producers, whose places may be filled by 
women, and 

“Whereas, This change will require considerable time to accomplish, 

“Therefore Be It Resolved, by the Engineering Association of 
Nashville that we request our Senators and Representatives in Con¬ 
gress to amend the present law as follows: 

1. Immigration should be regulated and selected both in quality 
and quantity by sending expert examiners to lands from which im¬ 
migration mostly comes. 

2. No more immigration should be admitted of any nationality 
than we can wholesomely assimilate and in a reasonable length of time 
wisely incorporate into our body politic. 

3. No more immigration should be admitted than can find steady 
and useful employment without endangering normal American 
standards of life, labor and wages. 

4. The numerical regulation of immigration should be flexible. 
When industrial depression sweeps the country, all labor immigration 
should be promptly stopped. But the doors should again be opened 
when prosperity returns. It should be possible to take either step 
without waiting for special Congressional action. 

261 


5. The closing and opening of our doors should be scientific. It 
should be based on assured and accurately compiled facts and sta¬ 
tistics from every part of the country. 

6. The law should be general. The principles should be applied 
equally to every nation and people without arbitrary discrimination. 

7. The law should be courteous to all. It should be possible, with¬ 
out humiliating any, to exclude completely particular types of immi¬ 
gration which definite experience shows to be difficult to assimilate 
and absorb. 

8. The law should provide for the sending of expert examiners to the 
lands from which immigration mostly comes—this for the sake of 
both prospective immigrants and of our own land. 

9. The law should make possible a wise distribution of new im¬ 
migration. The flow should be restricted, or entirely stopped from 
given peoples, to already congested areas and encouraged to go to 
those parts of America where it is desired. 

10. The new immigration policy should be distinctly patriotic. It 
should favor immigration from peoples easily assimilated and check 
it from other lands. It should guarantee equal treatment and a 
square deal to all aliens now in the United States. It should provide 
for higher standards for naturalization and then grant the privileges 
of citizenship to all who qualify. It should look to the creation of a 
substantially homogeneous people having a common mind and a 
wholesomely functioning democracy.” 

Mr. E. Gasche , Waverly , Kans. 

“Our County Grange has been discussing the immigration 
question and had planned for a full discussion and vote of in¬ 
struction to our delegates to our State Grange which is to meet 
the same week that your conference meets. 

“On account of financial stringency in this part of Kansas, 
not any of our farmers have the money to spare for the long 
trip to New York for your meeting, so I was asked to give an 
informal report of the sentiments of some of our farm people. 

“Instead of formal resolutions I am sending some of the 
arguments presented to our local grange, and, also what several 
of our leading farmers outside the grange have to say about this 
important question. 

“The time has come when all nations should be shown that 
the United States no longer needs immigrants. Its territory 
and labor opportunities should be conserved for native-born 
American citizens. No other nation has such hordes of illiterate, 
diseased, defective, criminal and revolutionists of all grades 
shipped to its territory, to become an expensive charge to the 
native workers, where they do not actually crowd out native 
American laborers. 

“Only manufacturers, mining, railway and other big corpora¬ 
tions employing large numbers of laborers are asking for this 

262 


cheap foreign labor. These corporations do not reduce the 
prices of their commodities to their consumers, no matter how 
low-priced the foreign labor is that takes the places of American 
workers. 

“American laborers displaced by immigrant laborers must, 
with all other consumers, pay the high cost of products that the 
American wage scale established, while their employers pocket the 
difference between the cost of American and foreign labor prices. 

“Opinions differ much as to the length of the time limit for 
excluding all immigration. It runs all the way from one to 
twenty-five years. 

“The lowest limit is for from one to two years, to give Con¬ 
gress time to study the question carefully and then enact a 
law that will give us only the better class of immigrants that 
we get from Great Britain, the whites of her dependencies, and 
the Scandinavian nations and Holland. 

“Others want all immigrants shut out for periods running 
from ten to twenty-five years, and then let the native-born 
Americans of that day say whether they want to open the 
gates again to any class of immigrants. 

“Our people want all immigrants shut out that come here 
just to make money to send back to their native land. Also 
shut out or deport at once all who refuse to become naturalized, 
or to learn the English language. 

“Exclude all laborers brought over by corporations to take the 
places of American laborers. Positively exclude all immigrants 
from Germany and her allies during the late war. 

“The Scandinavian countries and Great Britain and her de¬ 
pendencies can furnish all the labor we may need. Our people 
want all of the colored races forever excluded. We want no 
mixed races in this country. 

“Under special conditions admit scientists, artists, actors, 
musicians, clergymen, educators, lecturers, travelers and like 
educated specialists, provided they are not anarchists, bolshe- 
vists, communists or any other type of revolutionists. Admit 
no illiterates, paupeis, criminals, defectives, diseased, or any 
other type of undesirables. 

“Neither do we want any class that want to impose its type 
of political or religious belief on America. Keep American 
ideals and beliefs purely American for Americans.” 

263 


Ross Pier Wright , Secretary and Treasurer Reed Manufacturing Co., 
Erie, Pa. 

‘‘I have given considerable thought and attention to this 
subject, and am unalterably opposed to letting down the bars 
on immigration. As to some trivial changes, I have nothing to 
say, but I sincerely trust that if any changes are made to make 
the workings of the law more practical, it will be such that the 
eventual result will be fewer immigrants, and not more. 

“I believe that the success of a republic depends on the aver¬ 
age intelligence and education of the citizens, and I have had 
enough to do with politics to feel that the success of our republic 
demands that we, for the time being, hold immigration down to 
the absolute minimum, until we have absorbed our present 
foreign-born population.’* 

Robert G. Raymer , Registrar, Montana Wesleyan College , Helena , 
Montana. 

“Has the question of the desirability of closing Ellis Island 
as a port of entry for a limited number of years in order to in¬ 
fluence the distribution of immigrants ever been discussed to an 
extent sufficient to determine finally whether or not the sugges¬ 
tion has any merit ? 

“I most earnestly hope that the Conference will see fit to 
recommend to the United States Government such change in 
the regulations as will obviate the present possibility of a sepa¬ 
ration of families. This is one of the weak points in our present 
immigration scheme, a scheme which deserves the support of 
every citizen. The quantitative limitation is, in my opinion, 
essential, for every foreigner admitted competes with a man now 
in the country, now that our public lands are exhausted.” 

Mr. Edward S. Ebbert , Cincinnati, Ohio. 

“Would it be practicable to include in a Per Centum Limit 
Act its application to the several states ? Emigrants, for health 
and other reasons, should be selected at the port of embarkation 
with the understanding that they will only be admitted to cer¬ 
tain states as the allotment for those states may admit, such 
emigrants to report at specified dates to specified officials. 

“All admissions to be for say two years only, at the expiration 
of which time application for citizenship must be filed, or de¬ 
portation follow. 


264 


“Citizenship should be granted only to desirable applicants 
who can read and write and with a fair knowledge of what it 
means to be a citizen of this country. 

“Some such plan would lelieve all seaboard states of the 
present dreadful congestion and perforce divert emigration to 
states more able to assimilate the foreigner.” 

Harry J. Schools , Secretary , Business Men's Association of Lebanon, Pa. 

“Resolved, That the National Immigration Conference, meeting 
at Hotel Astor, New York City, December 13-14, 1923, be advised that 
the Business Men’s Association of Lebanon, Pa. favors 

“(1) A physical examination and control of quotas for various 
nationality groups by American Consular officers at the major ports 
of embarkation abroad; 

“(2) A maximum monthly quota for each nationality not in excess 
of ten per centum of the annual quota; 

“(3) The charging to each quota of wives and minor children 
arriving with admissible aliens or subsequently joining them; 

“(4) The charging to each quota of all aliens admitted without 
respect to their previous residence within the United States or any 
other conditions whatever; 

“(5) The maintenance of the present percentage, to be based, how¬ 
ever, upon the census of 1890 as evidence of the number of aliens of 
each nationality group resident within the United States; 

“(6) A limited educational test in respect to ability to speak and 
write English and understand American institutions before entry into 
the United States; 

“(7) A thorough system of registration of alien immigrants together 
with an effective follow-up method of information as to the residence, 
occupation and activities of such immigrants; 

“(8) The prompt enactment of legislation embodying the fore¬ 
going principles.” 

Mr. M. J. Flanagan , Supervising Inspector , Department of Labor , State of 

New York. 

“I believe that if it is desired to increase the quota allowed to 
enter our ports because of the demands of industry, if some sug¬ 
gestion might be forthcoming that would offer to reimburse the 
United States Tieasury in a percentage equivalent to the number 
of non-citizen employees which might be found at work in any 
industry, the product of whiGh had a tariff on it when brought 
into our ports (which might be classed as a protective tariff) 
and if such reimbursements were in the nature of a percentage 
of tariff, equivalent to the percentage of non-citizen employees, 
it might be possible to present an argument that would eliminate 
the objections made by citizens who are employed or desire to 
be employed in such industry.” 

265 


Dr. H. Lufft , New York City. 

“In the program no mention was made of a very important 
aspect of the question—in fact the most important one from 
an economical point of view, if you will consider longer periods 
and consequences which reach beyond the surface of things. 

“I mean the capital investments, the extension of national 
capital both in a private and public sense of the word, which are 
required for feeding, housing, clothing the immigrants, for pro¬ 
viding them with all necessities and, later on, with the luxuries 
of life. This means increased production, and increased pro¬ 
duction requires more labor. Contrary to the apparent but 
superficial impression, immigration creates demand for labor 
much more than it satisfies such demand. 

“The cause is obvious. Developing the agricultural, indus¬ 
trial, trading possibilities is in itself creation of capital, but in¬ 
volves large expenditures of human labor, direct or indirect 
brain labor, nerve labor, hand labor. Capital investments are 
not supposed to repay themselves by profits realized from them 
while the investment expenses go on. The immigrant, on the 
average, with all his working capacity and ability and willing¬ 
ness, would not be able to supply all the work (now only con¬ 
sidered quantitatively) his transplanting and rooting in the 
country of immigration involve. 

“Every child born may be regarded as a capital investment, 
primarily but not necessarily in an economic sense. Immigra¬ 
tion means transfer of capital from one country to another. 
This is the principle Great Britain at the present time is fighting 
for in settling inter-imperial relations with the British Domin¬ 
ions. It means transfer of capital from one country of low return 
on that specific capital—man—to a country of high return. But 
the other part of the investment the land of immigration has to 
pay, the part which we may call tools, comprising everything 
which will make the prospective citizen an effective member of 
the community. 

“To give a few tentative figures: National wealth in the 
United States is estimated at about $1500 per capita. Experi¬ 
ence shows that this (relative) figure grows while population 
grows; in other words, national wealth increases faster than 
population. On the average, therefore, every immigrant will 
require a national investment of $1500 capital. But the figure 
is completely misleading. The total national income may 

266 


be fairly estimated at about 10% of the total national 
capital, and the amount of national capital, in the public 
sense of the word, comprising all that has been built up 
in productive, distributive faculties, by many successive genera¬ 
tions, by private and public work, per capita, may at least be 
estimated at $10,000. If the earning capacity of an immigrant 
be taken, on the average, at $1500 a year, it will require about 
seven years’ work until he will have repaid by his own work the 
amount of national capital invested in his behalf. This is cer¬ 
tainly a quick return and a high return. 

“This reciprocal relation between immigration and extension 
of national capital will give you a true understanding of the 
importance of the immigration in the 19th century. The won¬ 
derful, almost unbroken economic prosperity of this country 
was the result of immigration.” 

Mr. W. H. Stillhauer, Morsemere, N. J. 

“Seeing the announcement of the National Immigration 
Conference to be held this week, I am moved to acquaint you 
with an outline of legislation along that line incorporated in a 
letter to President Harding in August, 1922. A complete re¬ 
vision of the immigration and naturalization laws was suggested. 

“1. By making a declaration of intent to acquire citizenship 
a prerequisite to entry into the United States. At one or more 
points in each foreign country from which immigrants are likely 
to come place an official before whom it shall be necessary for an 
alien to register before starting for this country. Have the 
would-be immigrant fill out in triplicate an application for per¬ 
mission to enter the United States, giving a full account of 
himself and his family up to the date of the application, with his 
-photograph and his finger prints as identification. A like appli¬ 
cation should be required from each member of his family six¬ 
teen years of age or over. Special attention should be given to 
his statements as to criminal record and affiliation or sympathy 
with movements antagonistic to organized government. He 
should be required to declare his intention of becoming a citizen 
of the United States, his readiness to apply for full citizenship 
as soon as our laws permit, his willingness to obey the laws, 
support the Constitution and respect the institutions of our 
land, and should waive all rights, privileges and immunities 
which he might claim by reason of any foreign allegiance. 

267 


“One copy of this application should be forwarded , at once 
to Washington, to form the nucleus of a record of the immigrant 
in a division of the Bureau of Immigration to be organized 
for that purpose. Another copy of the application should be 
used by the official in looking up the applicant’s record in his 
native country, and a third copy given to the applicant as a 
sort of passport to be presented upon landing for comparison 
with the copy previously officially forwarded. Before being 
permitted to land he should give further information as to his 
intended occupation, his destination, the full value and character 
of all possessions brought into the country, and any other facts 
that might be of value in carrying out the provisions of the act. 

“2. Repeal all laws regulating immigration by quota and 
arrange with foreign nations for their cooperation in the identifi¬ 
cation of all persons leaving their jurisdiction for our shores, 
and in the reporting of all cases of mental or other deficiency and 
all criminal or other objectionable records. 

“It should be the duty of the official with whom registry is 
made to secure with all possible dispatch the necessary infor¬ 
mation regarding the applicant, and return it to this govern¬ 
ment. Not until such report has been completed and forwarded 
should the immigrant be permitted to embark for this country. 
Certain definite disqualifications—such as a criminal record, 
mental or physical deficiency, avowed hostility to institutional 
government etc.—should be clearly defined in the law, the 
finding of any one of which should justify the refusal by the 
official of a permit to the applicant. The papers in the case 
should be forwarded to Washington, however, to be made a 
part of our records. If it be discovered, after the immigrant 
has arrived, that he should not be permitted to land, or to re¬ 
main after having landed, he should be summarily deported 
without right of appeal. Should any nation refuse to cooperate 
in the identification or notification as outlined, all immigration 
from that country should be prohibited or very severely re¬ 
stricted. 

“3. Similar records of all resident aliens, with photographs 
and finger prints should be made as soon as the law became 
operative, and they should be made subject to all its provisions 
save those having to do with the preliminary papers on the 
other side. They should, however, be required to take imme- 

268 


diate steps to become naturalized, and should subscribe to a 
similar list of questions as to past and present status, with the 
same penalty of deportation, should their record not be satis¬ 
factory. 

“4. Naturalization laws should be so framed as to require 
first citizenship papers to be filed within a minimum time after 
arrival, and the taking out of final papers within not more than 
two years. Meanwhile the applicant should be required to 
acquire a rudimentary knowledge of the English language— 
sufficient, at least, to enable him to understand what is said to 
him and to make himself understood, and to exercise intelli¬ 
gently the right of franchise which will come to him with citizen¬ 
ship. During this probationary period he should be required to 
report at stated intervals (at least three or four times a year) 
with proper identification, to a specified probation officer at his 
post office address, and evidence of his having done so should 
be forwarded to Washington. 

“5. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this act 
should make summary deportation of the delinquent without 
appeal, not merely optional, but obligatory, unless such delin¬ 
quency occur as the result of some unavoidable circumstance 
enumerated in the bill. 

“6. Upon conviction for any offense punishable by imprison¬ 
ment the naturalized citizen shall lose his citizenship, and upon 
the completion of his term of imprisonment he shall be turned 
over by the prison authorities to the Bureau of Immigration for 
immediate deportation as an undesirable alien, without right 
of appeal. 

“7. Should a naturalized citizen, within five years after 
final papers are issued, participate in any strike in which there 
is picketing, boycott, intimidation, coercion or violence to per¬ 
son or property; or should he aid or cooperate with any society, 
organization or body of men in any of these acts; or should he 
subscribe to or in any way identify himself with any organiza¬ 
tion or society whose teachings or activities are inimical to 
society and organized government, then the said naturalized 
citizen should lose his citizenship, his position and standing 
should be the same as if he had never sworn allegiance to the 
United States, he should be considered an undesirable alien and 
should be subject to the penalty hereinafter provided for an 
alien resident under like circumstances. 

269 


“8. It should be made a felony punishable by summary 
deportation without appeal for any alien resident to participate 
in any strike in which there is picketing, boycott, intimidation, 
coercion or violence to person or property, or to aid or cooperate 
with any society, organization or body of men in the commission 
of any of these acts, or to subscribe to or in any way identify 
himself with any organization or society whose teachings or 
activities are inimical to society .or organized government. 

“9. After giving a definition of a strike as intended in the 
act, it should be provided that membership in, contribution to 
or attendance at the meeting or deliberations of any society 
or organization by whose order or under whose direction any 
strike of the character described in sections seven and eight, or 
affiliation with any body of strikers, organized or otherwise, 
should be considered prima facie evidence of participation in 
such strike. 

“10. An alien, once deported, should never be permitted to 
re-enter the country. Should an alien voluntarily leave the 
country for a temporary visit before he has become fully natur¬ 
alized, he should be required to report his departure as provided 
in section four. When he desires to return, he should be subject 
to examination and registry the same as if he had never been 
here, save that the date of his original entry should be declared, 
and that date should determine the period within which he 
should be compelled to perfect his citizenship. 

“11. Wherever deportation is specified as a penalty under 
the provisions of the act, with loss of citizenship and the estab¬ 
lishment of the status of an undesirable alien, it should be ac¬ 
companied by confiscation of all property of the deported in¬ 
dividual in excess of the amount declared to have been in his 
possession at the time of entry. Provision should be made for 
the disposition of confiscated property and the establishment 
therefrom of a fund to be applied toward the expense of deporta¬ 
tion of aliens. 

“The enactment of a law along these lines would not only 
make it difficult for the criminal classes of other lands to come 
to this country, but would soon eliminate that class now resident 
here. It would keep out the undesirables who come with no 
intent to become citizens, and would open the doors for the 
better class of immigrants whom we need.” 

270 


List of questions set forth in Program of Discussion, together with replies 
thereto as adopted at a meeting of the Rhode Island Steamship Ticket 

Agents, held at Providence, Rhode Island, on December 3,1923. 

“I. Shall the Per Centum Limit Act which expires by limi¬ 
tation on June 30, 1924, be retained by extending the period of 
its operation ? 

Answer—Yes. 

U IL Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained with amend¬ 
ments in respect to administrative features, among those sug¬ 
gested being ? 

“a. Shall control oyer quotas for the various nationality 
groups be vested in American consular officers or govern¬ 
mental agents in foreign countries, operating under in¬ 
structions from the Federal Government and working in 
close cooperation with immigrants and steamship com¬ 
panies to prevent as far as possible the arrival of aliens in 
excess of quotas ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“b. Shall the maximum monthly quota for each nationality be 
fixed so as not to exceed 10% (instead of the present 20%) 
of the annual quota ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“c. Shall the unused portion of any monthly quota be admis¬ 
sible in any succeeding month during the fiscal year ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“d. Shall the wife and minor children arriving with an admis¬ 
sible alien or subsequently joining him in the United 
States, be admitted, if otherwise admissible, without 
without being charged to a quota ? 

Answer—Yes, if resident alien intends to become a United 
States citizen. 

“e. Shall an alien arriving after his nationality quota for the 
month has been exhausted and who is refused entry only 
because of exhaustion of such quota, be admissible under 
the new monthly quota without being returned to the 
country of embarkation ? 

Answer—No. 

“f. Shall resident aliens'leaving the United States for a tem¬ 
porary visit abroad be admissible on their return without 
being charged to quotas, if such return occurs within a year ? 
Answer—Yes. 

“g. Shall “aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, 
singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, 
professors for colleges or seminaries, aliens belonging to 
any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as 
domestic servants” of the wife or minor children of any 
such alien arriving with him or subsequently joining him, 
be admitted, if otherwise admissible, without being charged 
to quotas ? 

Answer—Yes. 


271 


“III. Shall the Per Centum Limit Act be retained with 
amendments in respect to percentage restriction, among those 
suggested being ? 

“a. Shall the percentage be changed ? 

Answer—Leave on present basis. 

“b. Shall the census year on which the percentage is based be 
changed ? 

Answer—No. 

“c. Shall the percentage be made to depend on the number of 
aliens of each nationality group resident in the United 
States or on the total population in the United States ? 
Answer—No change. 

“d. Shall quotas be based on net immigration ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“V. Shall special legislation be enacted to assure better selec¬ 
tion, distribution and assimilation of alien immigrants ? Prin¬ 
cipal suggestions are: 

“d. Shall physical examination of aliens desiring to emigrate 
to the United States be held at major ports of embarkation 
abroad by United States medicaLofficers ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“e. Shall certain blood and intelligence tests proposed by the 
United States Secretary of Labor be applied to alien 
immigrants ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“f. Shall a system of registration of alien immigrants be put 
into effect and, if so, what form shall it take ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“g. Shall a limited educational test in respect to ability to 
speak and write English and understand American insti¬ 
tutions be required of every alien immigrant within a given 
time after the time of his entry into the United States ? 
Answer—Three (3) years. 

“h. Shall alien immigrants be prohibited from settling in 
cities of a specified size for a limited period ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“VI. Shall an Investigating Commission be appointed by 
the President under Congressional Resolution to inquire into, 
and report within a limited time concerning: 

u a. Immigration and emigration in the light of present domes¬ 
tic and world conditions ? 

Answer—Yes. 

“No comments or replies made to the other questions under 
this group.” 


272 


PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

NATIONAL^INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 

{Prices given are for paper-bound copies; cloth binding fifty cents additional) 

RESEARCH, REPORTS 

No. 1. _ Workmen’s Compensation Acts in the United States—The Legal Phase. 60 pages 
April, 1917. Revised, August, 1919. $1.00. 

No. 2. Analysis of British Wartime Reports on Hours of Work as Related to Output 
and Fatigue. 57 pages. November, 1917. $1.00. 

No. 3. Strikes in American Industry in Wartime—April 6 to October 6, 1917. 20 pages. 

March, 1918. 50 cents. 

No. 4. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers—Cotton Manu¬ 
facturing. 64 pages. March, 1918. $1.00. 

No. 5. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. 31 pages. April, 1918. 
Revised and reprinted, April, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 6. Sickness Insurance or Sickness Prevention? 24 pages. May, 1918. 50 cents. 

No. 7. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers—Boot and Shoe 

Industry. 76 pages. June, 1918. $1.00. 

No. 8. Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades. 79 pages. July, 1918. $1.00. 

No. 9. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living. 78 pages. August, 1918. $1.00. 

No. 10. Arbitration and Wage-Fixing in Australia. 52 pages. October, 1918 $1.00. 

No. 11. The Eight-Hour Day Defined. 9 pages. December, 1918. 50 cents. 

No. 12. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers—Wool Manufac¬ 
turing. 69 pages. December, 1918. $1.00. 

No. 13. Rest Periods for Industrial Workers. 55 pages. January, 1919. $1.00. 

No. 14. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —November, 1918. 33 pages. 
February, 1919. 75 cents. 

No. 15. Problems of Industrial Readjustment in the United States. 58 pages. February, 
1919. $1.00. 

No. 16. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers—Silk Manufac¬ 
turing. 54 pages. March, 1919. $1.00. 

No. 17. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —March, 1919. 31 pages. May 
1919. 75 cents. 

No. 18. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Metal Manufac¬ 
turing Industries. 62 pages. July, 1919. $1.00. 

No. 19. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914— July, 1919. 31 pages. September, 

1919. 75 cents. 

No. 20. Wartime Changes in Wages: September, 1914 — March, 1919. 128 pages. Septem¬ 

ber, 1919. $1.50. 

No. 21. Works Councils in the United States. 135 pages. October, 1919. $1.50. 

No. 22. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners — Fall River, Massachusetts, October, 
1919. 18 pages. November, 1919. 50 cents. 

No 23. Conciliation and Arbitration in New Zealand. 46 pages. December, 1919. $1.00. 

No 24. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners — Lawrence, Massachusetts, November, 

1919. 21 pages. December, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 25. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914— November, 1919. 24 pages December, 

1919. 75 cents. 

No. 26. A Works Council Manual. 32 pages. February, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 27. The Hours of Work Problem in Five Major Industries. 91 pages. March, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 28. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —March, 1920. 24pages. May, 1920. 75 cents. 

No 29. Practical Experience with Profit Sharing in Industrial Establishments. 86 pages. 

‘ June, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 30. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914— July, 1920. 28 pages. September, 1920. 

75 cents. 

No. 31. Changes in Wages During and Since the War: September, 1914— March, 1920. 53 
pages. September, 1920. $1.00. 


RESEARCH REPORTS — continue a 

No. 32. Practical Experience with the Work Week of Forty-Eight Hours or Less. 
88 pages. December, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 33. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —November, 1920. 29 pages. December, 

1920. 75 cents. 

No. 34. Health Service in Industry. 61 pages. January, 1921. $1.00. 

No. 35. Wage Changes in Industry: September, 1914 —December, 1920. 50 pages. March, 

1921. $1.00. 

No. 36. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —March, 1921. 28 pages. April, 1921. 

75 cents. 

No. 37. Cost of Health Service in Industry. 33 pages. May, 1921. $1.00 

No. 38. Experience with Trade Union Agreements—Clothing Industries. 134 pages. June, 

1921. $1.50. 

No. 39. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —July, 1921. 25 pages. August, 1921. 

75 cents. 

No. 40. Wages in Great Britain, France and Germany. 110 pages. August, 1921. $1.50. 

No. 41. Family Budgets of American Wage-Earners: A Critical Analysis. 97 pages. Sep¬ 
tember, 1921. $1.00. 

No. 42. The Metric versus the English System of Weights and Measures. 261 pages. Octo¬ 
ber, 1921. $2.50. 

No. 43. The Unemployment Problem. 91 pages. November, 1921. $1.00. 

No. 44. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914—November, 1921. 30 pages. Decem¬ 

ber, 1921. 75 cents. 

No. 45. Wages and Hours in American Industry: July, 1914—July, 1921. 202 pages. De¬ 

cember, 1921. $2.00. 

No. 46. Railroad Wages and Working Rules. 130 pages. February, 1922. $2.00. 

No. 47. Wages and Hours in Anthracite Mining: June, 1914 —October, 1921, Inclusive. 
67 pages. March, 1922. $1.50. 

No. 48. The International Labor Organization of the League of Nations. 159 pages. 
April, 1922. $2.00. 

No. 49. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —March, 1922. 33 pages April, 1922. 

75 cents. 

No. 50. Experience with Works Councils in the United States. 191 pages. May, 1922. $2.00, 
No. 51. Unemployment Insurance in Theory and Practice. 127 pages. June, 1922. $1.50. 

No. 52. Wages and Hours in American Manufacturing Industries: July, 1914 —January, 

1922. 235 pages. July, 1922. $2.00. 

No. 53. Wages in Foreign Countries. 131 pages. August 1922. $1.50 

No. 54. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —July, 1922. 34 pages. August, 1922. 

75 cents. 

No. 55. Taxation and National Income. 86 pages. October, 1922. $1.50. 

No. 56. The Consolidation of Railroads in the United States. 107 pages. November, 
1922. $2.00. 

No. 57. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —November, 1922. 37 pages. Decem¬ 
ber, 1922. 75 cents. 

No. 58. The Immigration Problem in the United States. 130 pages. May, 1923. $1.50. 

No. 59. Wages, Hours and Employment in American Manufacturing Industries: July, 
1914—January, 1923, With Supplemental Data up to April, 1923. 160 pages. May, 1923- 
$ 2 . 00 . 

No. 60. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 —March, 1923. 34 pages. May, 1923. 

75 cents. 

No. 61 . Workmen’s Compensation Acts in the United States: The Medical Aspect. 285 
pages, with index. August, 1923. $3.00. 

No. 62. Wages, Hours and Employment in American Manufacturing Industries: July, 
1914 —July, 1923. 154 pages. September, 1923. $2.00. 

No. 63. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — July, 1923. 36 pages. September, 1923. 
75 cents. 

No. 64. Tax Burdens and Exemptions. 130 pages. October, 1923. $2.00. 

No. 65. Experience with Mutual Benefit Associations in the United States. 155 pages. 
December, 1923. $1.50. 

No. 66. A Manual for Mutual Benefit Associations. 48 pages. January, 1924. 75 cents. 


SPECIAL REPORTS 

No. 1. A Case of Federal Propaganda in Our Public Schools: Some Criticisms of “Lessons 
in Community and National Life,” Issued by the U. S. Bureau of Education. 13 pages 
February, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 2. War Revenue Act of 1918: A Brief Analysis. 18 pages. March 14, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 3. Interim Report of the European Commission of the National Industrial Confer¬ 
ence Board. 34 pages. July, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 4. Is Compulsory Health Insurance Desirable ? 12 pages. October, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 5. The Vital Issues in the Industrial Conference at Washington, D. C.: October6-23, 
1919. 15 pages. November, 1919. 50 cents. 

No. 6. Problems of Labor and Industry in Great Britain, France, and Italy. Report of 
the European Commission. 406 pages. November, 1919. $2.50. 

No. 7. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners—North Hudson County, New Jersey, 
January, 1920. 20 pages. March, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 8. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners—Greenville and Pelzer, South Carolina, 
and Charlotte, North Carolina, January and February, 1920. 25 pages. May, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 9. Proceedings of the National Industrial Tax Conference at Chicago, Illinois 
April 16, 1920. 113 pages. May, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 10. Should Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations Be Made Legally Responsible ? 
(Prize Essays, 1919-1920). 35 pages. June, 1920. 75 cents. 

No. 11. The Closed Union Shop versus the Open Shop: Their Social and Economic Value 
Compared. (Prize Essays, 1919-1920). 27 pages. July, 1920. 75 cents. 

No. 12. Should the State Interfere in the Determination of Wage Rates? (Prize Essays, 
1919-1920). 158 pages. August, 1920. $1.50. 

No. 13. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners — Cincinnati, Ohio, May, 1920. 18 pages. 

July, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 14. Unwarranted Conclusions Regarding the Eight-Hour and Ten-Hour Workday: A 
Critical Review of . . . U. S. Public Health Bull. No. 106. 21 pages. August, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 15. Problems of Labor and Industry in Germany. 65 pages. September, 1920. $1.00. 

No. 16. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners — Worcester, Massachusetts, June, 1920. 
16 pages. October, 1920. 50 cents. 

No. 17. Proceedings of the Second National Industrial Tax Conference, New York City, 
October 22 and 23, 1920. 200 pages. December, 1920. $1.50. 

No. 18. Report of the Tax Committee of the National Industrial Conference Board, on 
the Federal Tax Problem. 58 pages. December, 1920. 75 cents. 

No. 19. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners—Detroit, Michigan, September, 1921. 
22 pages. October, 1921. 50 cents. 

No. 20. A Digest of “The Metric versus the English System of Weights and Measures” 
(Research Report No. 42). 11 pages. December, 1921. 25 cents. 

No. 21. The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners — Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania, 
February, 1922. 41 pages. April, 1922. 75 cents. 

No. 22. The Physician in Industry: A Symposium. 98 pages. June, 1922. $1.00. 

No. 23. The Present Railroad Situation. 32 pages. August, 1923. 50 cents. 

No. 24. The Soldiers’ Bonus, or Adjusted Compensation for Soldiers. 46 pages. August, 
1923. 50 cents. 

No. 25. Engineering Education and American Industry. 25 pages. August, 1923. 50 cents. 

No. 26. Proceedings of the National Immigration Conference. 272 pages. February, 1924- 

$ 2 . 00 . 


INDUSTRIAL NEWS SURVEY 

Important industrial news in concise form. A digest of industrial 
news and comment as published in reliable newspapers, maga¬ 
zines, reviews, special articles, and government documents. 

Weekly. $2.00 per year 

WALL CHART SERVICE 

Graphic presentation of vital and outstanding facts of industrial- 
economic conditions and movements in the United States and foreign 
countries, based on the Board’s investigations and on other reliable 

sources. 

Single Charts (18"x24") $1.00 each 

Sets of fifty consecutive charts $37.50 per set 


A GRAPHIC ANALYSIS 

OF THE 

CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES 

A Special Volume of 120 Multi-Colored Plates, 
with Concise Text and Tabulations, Presenting 
in Condensed and Graphic Form Basic Information 
on Personnel, Production, Expenditures, Wages, 
Taxes, Hours of Work, Power and Fuel in All 
Important American Industries During the Past 
Seventy Years. 

274 pages. Levant bound, $7.50 


m 


H83 83 















































t ' * 


iv o 0 " 0 * 


y- 

o V 


c° °o ^ . 




'*••*•' %. ‘ * * •' y’ A°° "V * ’* 

, *y •1*^' ^ c\ <<y **•<>* v N 

-A A^ A A. .A. A. * 


\? ' 


«■ A . 

o *>* ,V 


■t>% 



>° V 

♦ 0 rtO * J 

* - ° <S> * 

ydfe- xs - 

v ’ASSE?** % 


'- ®6 j.0^ •!,*•» 

\Z %«** •- 




<, ‘-TV.* ,G V ~c> -.'.7* A 

• °~" * * - V <y °o ^ '7f> ,o v , 

; ^ »p*. 


vP C> <• < 


, M . ^y//m<ff ' £ °** 

r.... :v^v\.... v^y...x^* / 

X* ;Sjfc \/ 4|&: \X •**& ^ ^ ' 

^ V °-VVV ^ ^f> *«*3Er»* \ \’WV V ^ 

^ ° * * A */7vT« 0^ *0, "• • * « A ^ 

-“*% °o ^ 6°* ‘ii&N °o ^ 

"ov 1 r*. ^ 0 « .&?%&' *b 

. 5>°’ 7 ‘<#* <5^0 *wl§?^« jP^j. 

0 y r ^cir^' % * r A *%l|^vvy % A ^ V ^. * 



•* A^ V- ^ "• 1 




*•••• f° ^ ,rr ’• ’ y % , ^rr** # p» ^‘^t* aV 

V # 1 * V* * • * * / rtV »*o V 

• Qia# ** ^ ^ ¥/k ° ^ ^ ^ 


vPC, 




'* «? V-> o ♦ AV 

<. ♦v’ 77 ;*' 4 o^ **f. r** 4 ^,> /*. v 

^ V* c .-^kvV., c ° 


*$. a v * 



^0^ 





0-4 tT 5 

o > 


5-°^ 



v-o 1 


# t°* 



* *' ’ ‘ .. ..V'”*^ • * %°%’' ‘" y 

A-j-w.A : -mb X ; i 


' <L 
















